Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939 (CONTINUANCE).

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, as amended by any subsequent Enactment, be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the Twenty-fourth day of August, Nineteen hundred and forty-two.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Thorne: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are 114 Questions on the Order Paper? Should not Members try to restrain themselves from putting too many Supplementary Questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

Medical Schools, London (Women Students).

Professor A. V. Hill: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that most medical schools in London refuse to accept women medical students, although many with good educational qualifications are anxious to enter; and whether, in view of the fact that students beginning now will not be medically qualified for several years, he will refuse to reserve any more men to commence the study of medicine in these schools unless they agree to take a reasonable proportion of suitable women?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am aware that some medical schools in London do not accept women students. Whether such schools should accept them is a question for consideration by the Committee on Medical

Schools, of which I understand my hon. Friend is a member. I must, however, take all relevant facts into consideration before I agree to reservation.

Professor Hill: Does the Minister consider it is a good thing to allow young men to stay out of the Services merely to prevent women entering the medical profession?

Mr. Bevin: I do not deal with reservations on that basis. No one regrets' more than I do the rigidity of the medical trade union rules.

Dr. Haden Guest: Will my right hon. Friend go further into this matter and see whether his great influence cannot modify the rigidity of the trade union rules? As one trade union leader to another, he would speak on terms of equality.

Mr. Bevin: I am quite convinced that the equality would be all right.

Coalmining Industry (Prosecutions).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of person employed in and about coalmines who have been prosecuted by his Department in each of the several coalfields, giving the number of miners employed, or the percentage of prosecution to the number employed in each case?

Mr. Bevin: The available records show that up to the end of June, 1942, the number of persons prosecuted for breaches of the Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Orders was as follows:


England
…
…
…
424


Wales
…
…
…
14


Scotland
…
…
…
53


I have no statistics which would enable me to classify prosecutions instituted under the Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Orders by reference to the different coalfields in which persons prosecuted were employed. It would not be in the public interest to give information about the number of men employed.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware of the suspicion that some of his officers are very much keener on prosecuting miners in some coalfield districts than in others, and will he look into this?

Mr. Bevin: I do not accept that statement. I am quite sure my officials have acted strictly in accordance with the instructions and, in the main, in accordance with the advice of the responsible committees.

Mr. Gallacher: No managers have yet been prosecuted.

Alien Dentists.

Professor Hill: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of foreign refugee dentists are at present unemployed; and whether in view of the shortage of man-power, he will cease to reserve further dental students from military service until these refugee dentists are absorbed, either in practice with temporary registration, or as students to obtain British qualifications?

Mr. Bevin: On this subject generally I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) on 14th July. The suggested reduction in the quota of British dental students would not be practicable since quotas of dental students are fixed with a view to maintaining the future supply of British dentists, and it would not be proper to reduce them to make room for students who may not in the ordinary course be practising in this country after the war. If my hon. Friend is aware of any difficulty experienced by aliens in obtaining admission as students I should be glad to look into the matter if he will send me particulars.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that the excuses which have been given in previous replies for the refusal to admit students are really untenable, and that there is a very strong case for admitting aliens to work in the schools? Will he not go further into the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I will certainly look into the matter. I must be careful, however, that in the employment of aliens I do not set up a national conflict between the students, so that the British students feel prejudiced because I am finding room for aliens. The policy I have followed is to try and get harmony and to welcome these alien students into the schools with good feeling.

Mobile Women Workers, Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that factories in Ayrshire, formerly manufacturing lace but now devoting their resources to machining tank and aeroplane parts, are being told by employment exchange man-

agers that all their mobile girls will be sent away from home to work in England; and whether he will issue orders without delay to prevent this transfer of Scottish girls against their will, interfering with war production in Scotland, and to relieve the bitter feeling caused both to the girls and their parents?

Mr. Bevin: Women are not being withdrawn from munitions work in Ayrshire, but those who are released as the result of the concentration of certain sections of the lace industry will be considered for transfer in the ordinary way to areas where the shortage of labour is most acute.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that I have received many letters from mothers and girls as well as from employers? Is he aware that an employer has written to me saying:
Scottish employers are simply wild that their urgent needs apparently should be ignored in this light fashion by Mr. Bevin, and a very awkward situation is being created which may be difficult to control"?
Has he anything to reply to that?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I cannot reply to my hon. Friend's correspondence.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is rather offhand.

Soldier's Wife (Employment).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mrs. Violet Stevens, 2a, Brighton Road, East Ham, E.6, the wife of a serving soldier, employed in the butchery department of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society at 53s. per week, has been requested by the local officers of his Department to work at the canteen of the Standard Telephones, at 35s. per week; and will he prevent Mrs. Stevens from being removed from a job of importance to one of no greater importance and her wages reduced by 18s. per week?

Mr. Bevin: Mrs. Stevens has not yet left her employment with the Co-operative Society pending the provision of a substitute. She asked for canteen work in preference to work at a factory and the wages in the job proposed for her at the canteen of Standard Telephones included food.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the woman who is to substitute Mrs. Stevens is the wife of a civilian? Why is it that the wife of this civilian was not


sent to the canteen which would have avoided taking Mrs. Stevens from her work?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that Mrs. Stevens wanted to do the canteen work.

Mr. Davies: In preference to the other, not because she wanted to leave her job. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the first available opportunity.

Football Pools (Women Employees).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour how many girls working in the football pool offices are between 20 and 30 years of age; and how many have been withdrawn from these offices to do essential war work?

Mr. Bevin: Precise figures are not available, but with very few exceptions all women between the ages of 20 and 30 have already been withdrawn from employment connected with football pools.

Shopping Facilities.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in cases where the local authority, the chamber of trade and the representatives of employers and workers have agreed upon a scheme that provides facilities for men and women workers to be able to shop at convenient hours to the shift working, his department has refused to permit any alteration in the shop hours; and whether, under the altered conditions of these times, he will consider modifications of this Act in order that the war effort may be aided?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My Department has been giving close attention in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and other departments, such as the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Food, to this question of shopping facilities for war workers; and the experience hitherto acquired has shown that shopping difficulties can best be met by other arrangements than the extension of shop hours in the evening when women are often too tired to use such facilities. The policy is not to refuse to consider any question of adjusting shop hours, but in the first instance to consider whether local difficulties cannot be more effectively met by other methods, including arrangements

for women employed in munition work to have reasonable time off for shopping at convenient hours.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the case of Luton where everybody agrees that the Home Office refused to agree?

Mr. Morrison: I asked my hon. Friend for the area which he had in mind, but he preferred not to tell me. Now he has mentioned it I will look into it.

Sir R. Glyn: I beg pardon, but I was never asked.

Mr. Morrison: My information was that my hon. Friend was asked, but if that is not the case I am sorry.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When my right hon. Friend is requested to look into the shopping difficulties of the workpeople, will he see that he does not impose onerous duties on shop workers?

Mr. Morrison: That is one of the factors to be kept in mind.

Retail Distributive Trades Sub-committees.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give particulars of the retail distributive trades sub-committee before which, in London, female persons are called for interview; by whom were the members nominated; is there any different composition for different employments; and the nature of discretion and function of such committee?

Mr. Bevin: Retail distributive trades sub-committees, which are sub-committees of the local employment committees and have been set up at each employment exchange throughout the country, are composed of not more than three employers' and three workers' representatives from the retail distributive trades, other than food, under an independent chairman. The employers' representatives are drawn from a panel nominated by local traders' organizations and upon which the different sections of retail trade are represented, while the representatives of the workers are nominated by the workers' side of the Central Advisory Panel for the Retail Distributive Trades. The functions of these committees are to make recommendations about women claimed as


pivotal workers whom they may, at their discretion, interview and to advise generally on local labour supply problems in the trades concerned.

Major Lyons: Is there the same constitution of these committees for consideration of cases of all retail trades, and what is the number of persons necessary to form a quorum, or must all the members be present to reach a decision?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer those questions without notice.

Building Industry (Smaller Businesses).

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the Minister of Labour how, in view of the present policy of drafting labour to large firms of contractors at the expense of the smaller firms, he proposes to meet urgent post-war building requirements, seeing that many of the firms which would be necessary for that purpose are now being rendered inoperative through having their labour taken away and through not being allowed to quote for work urgently required by Government Departments?

Mr. Bevin: The overriding consideration at the present time must be the speedy completion of works of special urgency and this must involve the transfer so far as necessary of labour from less essential work, irrespective of the size of the firms concerned. With regard to the use of the smaller builders, I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply given on 28th July by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning to the hon. and gallant Member for Kettering (Captain Profumo).

Interviewed Women (Welsh Language).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to ensure that when women are called for interview either by his officers or by interviewing panels in Wales, the interview shall be conducted in the Welsh language where the persons concerned so desire?

Mr. Bevin: So far as possible, arrangements are made for interviews at offices in Wales to be conducted in the Welsh language where the person concerned so desires. If my hon. Friend is aware of any particular case where difficulty has been experienced and will let me have details I will have inquiries made.

Juveniles (Hours of Work).

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour whether Government Departments are exempt from the regulations that govern the working hours of juveniles; and what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that hours up to 60 a week are not worked?

Mr. Bevin: The provisions in the Factories Act regulating the hours of young persons apply to Crown Establishments. It is primarily the responsibility of the Minister controlling the particular establishment to see that these provisions are observed. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply with regard to certain of his establishments. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I should be glad to have particulars.

Day Nurseries, Willesden.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are several hundreds of women in West Willesden who are anxious to start work in the factories engaged on war work, but are unable to do so owing to the lack of accommodation for their young children; that the local authority has done its best to proceed with the necessary accommodation, but have not received the help and assistance in expediting same that should be given by his Department; and can he give a date when the necessary accommodation will be available?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The Ministry of Labour and National Service have recommended that there should be five day nurseries in Willesden. Two are already in operation, another has been approved, and schemes for four more are in preparation, making seven in all. I cannot accept the suggestion made in the second part of the Question. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) proposes to visit Willesden personally to discuss outstanding points and to secure an early completion of the rest of the programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING TRADE (REGULATION).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an undertaking that no legislation regulating wages and hours in the catering industry


will be introduced unless of an agreed character?

Mr. Bevin: While I appreciate the advantages of agreement in such a matter and do not despair of obtaining them, I could not consent to such a derogation of the Authority of Parliament as is implied in my hon. Friend's request.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (L.P.T.B. CONDUCTORS).

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour whether the military work to which some of the 865 conductors of military age of the London Passenger Transport Board were assigned, but said not to be required, will be shortly available?

Mr. Bevin: The figure quoted by my hon. Friend includes men who have been placed in Medical Grades III and IV and men otherwise unavailable for service; those available for posting who have not yet been called up number about 150, the majority of whom are in the oldest of the age classes so far registered for military service, and they may expect to be posted at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

Pneumonia (Statistics).

. 16. Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health the relationship between the number of cases of acute primary and influenzal pneumonia notified, and the actual incidence of these conditions?

Mr. E. Brown: As there is no other reliable evidence of the incidence of pneumonia than that afforded by statutory notification I am unable to give the desired information.

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of cases which are not notified, and will he devise some machinery to ensure notification?

Mr. Brown: I will look into it, but I do not think there is any reason to believe that there is any substantive failure to notify pneumonia. Indeed medical opinion is that there is rather over—than under—notification, from the standpoint that other things than can strictly be described as pneumonia are so notified.

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more deaths recorded than notifications?

Major Lyons: Is it not time to overhaul this question of notifiable diseases altogether?

Mr. Brown: That is a different question.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health the number of acute, primary and influenzal pneumonia cases notified each year from 1932 to 1941, inclusive, together with the number of deaths from these conditions?

Mr. Brown: As the answer involves tabular statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Cases of acute, primary and influenzal pneumonia notified in England and Wales from 1932 to 1941 and deaths from these conditions during the same period.


—
Cases of acute, primary and influenzal pneumonia notified.
Deaths from Pneumonia (all forms).
Deaths from Influenza with pneumonic complications


1932
57,401
30,743
5,716


1933
65,009
31,259
10,744


1934
51,483
29,751
2,505


1935
46,901
27,843
3,325


1936
46,167
28,890
2,830


1937
55,896
30,331
8,910


1938
45,160
27,467
2,179


1939*
42,312
23,403
3,588


1940*
47,875
29,195
4,852


1941*
50,942
26,418
2,880


* Including non-civilians.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether there has been a fall in the death-rate from acute pneumonia since the introduction of chemotherapy in 1938, in view of the known reduction in the mortality rate in controlled series of cases from, approximately, 30 per cent. to 10 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: I am advised that, although one drug in particular used in chemotherapy has lowered the fatality rate in controlled series of cases and proved its value in certain kinds of pneumococcal infection, the complications of pneumonia are such that it would not be justifiable as yet to look for any substantial effect on mortality from the disease in all its forms.

Pupil Midwives.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is the policy of the Central Midwives Board to require pupil midwives, during the second period of their training, to reside in the homes of district teacher midwives and to permit a limited number of pupils only to reside during this part of their training in an institution; that, as a result, only four pupil midwives can now be trained in the maternity service maintained by the Ilford Borough Council; and whether, in view of the need for training a sufficient number of midwives and the difficulty of arranging for pupils to reside with district teachers, especially under war-time conditions, he will take steps to secure some modification of the present policy?

Mr. Brown: I am aware that the policy of the Central Midwives Board is to require pupil midwives to live with their district teacher during a part of their second period of training, so that they may receive the full value of the domiciliary training. The shortage of practising midwives is not due to a shortage of pupils, but to the failure of many qualified midwives to practise. I do not, therefore, think it is necessary to ask the Central Midwives Board to modify their policy.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ilford Borough Council would be able to train a very much greater number of pupil midwives if they were permitted to reside in the institution instead of with the district teachers?

Tuberculosis, Wales.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to deal with the waiting list of patients for admission to tubercular hospitals and sanatoria in Wales?

Mr. E. Brown: I have under immediate consideration the possibility of releasing from the Emergency Hospital Scheme a further 200 beds for tuberculosis cases in Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: When is accommodation likely to be released? There is very grave urgency in the matter.

Mr. Brown: I am aware of that, and that is why I made the answer that I did.

Osteopaths.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health what public recognition is given to osteopaths; whether they are entitled to any of the rights accorded to the medical profession; and whether, in the event of their being liable to service, any use is made of their healing ability?

Mr. E. Brown: In view of the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Osteopaths Registration and Regulation Bill of 1935, Parliament has not thought fit to confer any official recognition on osteopaths or to accord them any of the rights specially accorded to registered medical practitioners. I understand that the Services do not make use of the special manipulative technique of osteopaths.

Mr. Hannah: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that osteopathy has any particular use in medicine or not?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the Select Committee's Report, which is very interesting, and he will see that the broad reason why they recommended against the Bill was that osteopaths have not a common body of doctrine.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real reason is that the medical profession objected?

Mr. Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Member has read the Report.

Mr. Hall: I have.

Tuberculosis (Convalescence).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that patients discharged from tuberculosis sanatoria, but still needing special treatment, are compelled to seek employment through financial circumstances and are therefore unable to benefit from that treatment; and whether any steps will be taken to enable them to continue convalescence by supplementary grants from the Assistance Board or otherwise?

Mr. E. Brown: I do not doubt that such circumstances as my hon. Friend refers to may occasionally arise. The economic position of tuberculosis persons is one of the aspects of the tuberculosis problem Which is engaging my close attention at the moment.

Mr. Sorensen: When is it likely that action will be taken?

Mr. Brown: I expect a report from the Medical Research Council any day now, and it is in connection with that that I am making my own investigations.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACANT HOUSES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain owners of vacant houses are refusing to let them to possible tenants; and whether he will take steps by increasing the powers of local authorities, or otherwise, to compel owners of such property to let at reasonable rentals after the lapse of a specified period when their houses become vacant?

Mr. E. Brown: My attention has been drawn to a few districts in London where there are vacant houses. I am making inquiries to ascertain what are the special reasons for their remaining empty, and I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may care to send to me. As he knows, I have already delegated powers to local authorities for requisitioning houses for people who are required to move in connection with the war effort.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information regarding houses to let in North-East London? Does he appreciate how galling it is for people who need houses to be refused them?

Mr. Brown: Of course, North-East London is a large area. If the hon. Member will let me know of any particular cases, it will help me in my general inquiries.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman's investigation be confined to London, or will it extend to places such as Birmingham?

Mr. Brown: I did not say that I would confine my inquiries to London.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it compulsory on property owners to notify vacancies to local authorities?

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED BUNGALOW, TAMWORTH.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the requisitioning by his senior regional

officer, of No. 4 Bungalow, Fazeley Road, Tamworth, was done with reasonable notice to and consideration for the parties affected?

Mr. E. Brown: It is the practice of my Department in these difficult cases to give as long notice as is possible, in order that questions of relative hardship may be dealt with in advance. In this case, in view of the urgency of the representations for requisitioning made to my Department, it was not possible to give more than a very brief notice. I am not aware that hardship has been caused to the parties concerned in this case, and I repeat the assurance I have already given to my hon. Friend in a recent letter, that any representations in favour of ending requisitioning which may be made in this case will receive my full and sympathetic consideration.

Sir J. Mellor: Was it necessary in this case that the house should be forcibly entered upon the same day as that on which notice of requisition was posted to the owner?

Mr. Brown: The Defence Regulation does not require notice to be given, but it is our usual practice. The hon. Baronet knows from the letter that I sent him that the information given us was that the man for whom the bungalow was wanted was a "key" war-worker.

Sir J. Mellor: Was any inquiry made as to the circumstances?

Mr. Brown: I have dealt with the whole of the circumstances in my reply.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman justify the procedure in this case?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING MATERIALS (FLINTS AND STONES).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the shortage of building materials and the need for saving bricks, he will revive along the coast the rebuilding and building of houses with flints and stones which can be gathered for nothing upon the shore, and which have accumulated of late to the detriment of a town's amenities such as Cromer?

Mr. E. Brown: The considerations which my hon. and gallant Friend mentions are not the only, indeed not the


main, reasons for a restriction on building at the present time, but I will certainly consider the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very important to use flints?

Mr. Brown: I have answered that in my reply.

Commander Locker-Lampson: But the matter is so urgent that it requires action.

Mr. Sorensen: Why not mud and wattles?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Pensions why a pension was refused to William Nixon, of Hawthorn, County Durham, an ex-naval rating, aged 23 years, who joined the Navy when 17 years of age, served four years and 10 months, has taken part in several actions, was mentioned in dispatches for having handled an unexploded bomb, who developed a swelling in the thigh as a result of which his leg has been amputated; and whether he is aware that this young man's only means is 11s. 9d. from Health Insurance?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am empowered to award a pension only in respect of a disability which is certified to be directly attributable to or materially aggravated by war service. As I informed the hon. Member in my letter of 28th July, I am medically advised that Mr. Nixon's disability is of constitutional origin and that it cannot be regarded as having been in any way influenced by such service.

Mr. Shinwell: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that statement in view of the fact that this young man served nearly five years in the Navy and during that period no evidence of disability due to constitutional origin emerged, and in view of his service and the commendation of his effort in particular actions; and in view of the strong public feeling in my constituency, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Sir W. Womersley: I am quite prepared to submit this to an independent specialist to remove, any doubt on the

question whether the disability is attributable to or aggravated by service, and I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman after Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful for that concession—it is something. Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this young man is now compelled to live on 11s. 9d. a week, health insurance, and is a burden on his parents? That is a most invidious position.

Sir W. Womersley: I realise the difficult position that he is placed in, but I am bound to act according to the instrument passed and agreed to by the House. I am very wishful to help the man, and that is why I want a discussion with the hon. Gentleman after Questions.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time Service Ministers looked after the interests of serving men instead of always passing the buck to him?

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to reconsider the case of Mr. Sutton, of Belgrave Avenue, Leicester; and, in view of the fact that he was enlisted in medical category A1 in October, 1939, and discharged in October, 1941, as permanently medically unfit, why is responsibility repudiated and no pension awarded?

Sir W. Womersley: The fact that a man is placed in medical category Grade I on enlistment and is subsequently discharged as medically unfit does not of itself give title to pension: it must be certified that the disability which led to discharge was directly attributable to or materially aggravated by service. While I am able to regard any certified degree of aggravation as being "material" in a case where the man was Grade I on enlistment, I am unable to accept Mr. Sutton's case on this ground since I am advised that service played no part in producing his present condition.

Major Lyons: In view of the fact that for two years this man served as A1 and that there was no evidence of any previous disability during that period, is the Minister going to repudiate all responsibility and say that this must be a case where public assistance and not the State should render help?

Sir W. Womersley: I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will go through the papers of this case. He will then know what the man is suffering from.

Major Lyons: While reserving my rights in the matter, I shall be glad to do so. May I ask, however, whether it is not about time the Minister initiated some alteration whereby the onus of proof is removed from the unfortunate soldier to the State which should prove that his condition was not the result of service? The State has the facilities and the man has not.

Sir W. Womersley: I am prepared to accept that suggestion now. It is up to my Department to make the proof and I am prepared to show my hon. and gallant Friend the papers.

Mr. Mathers: Can I put a Question?

Mr. Speaker: If there are so many Supplementary Questions, we shall never get on at all.

Mr. Barr: asked the Minister of Pensions how many pension cases have been submitted to the panel of independent medical specialists since the declaration of war; and with what result?

Sir W. Womersley: One hundred and twenty-seven cases have been so referred, of which 46 were recommended for admission to pension.

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared, in view of the substantial increase in the cost of living, to revise the pensions of ex-service pensioners of the last war?

Sir W. Womersley: The rates of pension laid down in the Royal Warrant of the 6th December, 1919, for disablement due to service in the Great War were based on a cost-of-living figure higher than that prevailing to-day. The hon. Member may be assured that the conditions under which those pension rates may be raised, as laid down in that Royal Warrant, are kept constantly in mind, but those conditions are not so far fulfilled.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the Minister also consider the small number of men whose pensions were fixed before the last war?

Sir W. Womersley: They are provided for.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIAN) SCHEME.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now arrived at a decision in regard to the consideration of the admission of claims based on prospective dependency under the Personal Injuries (Civilian) Scheme?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not yet able to make an announcement regarding the admission of claims to pension of the type mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a reply?

Sir W. Womersley: I hope I shall have a little more time to get down to this quickly.

Mr. Griffiths: After the Recess?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement by Mr. Patel that the Indian National Congress did not seek power for itself but would be satisfied if India was handed over to the Moslem League or any other party: whether, in view of the political significance of this, he will seek an official amplification of it from the Congress; and whether this in any way affects the attitude of His Majesty's Government?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): It is not easy to reconcile the various utterances of individual representatives of the Congress Party. The conclusions of the forthcoming meeting of the All-India Congress Committee will no doubt define the official policy of the party.

Mr. Sorensen: If this statement is accurate, does it not indicate that the alleged hostility of Congress and Moslems alike is not so severe and great as is sometimes assumed?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not the need in India to show that we have a Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

First-Aid Post Personnel (Overalls).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the issue of a second bluette combination suit


to the personnel of first-aid posts for use when the present only suit is being washed?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who agrees with me that in the existing supply situation male members of the first-aid post service should, in common with members of other Civil Defence services, draw on the reserve of bluette overalls which local authorities have been authorised to hold for temporary issue when uniforms are being repaired or cleaned.

Mr. Hall: Have first-aid post personnel been told of this concession?

Mr. Morrison: I presume so, but if not I will see that it is done.

Fire Guards (Respirators).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the reason for the Regulation which lays it down that fire guards unable to see without spectacles must carry their gas-masks when on duty, in view of the fact that it is not proposed to issue such men with civilian duty respirators?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know to what Regulation about fire guards my hon. Friend refers. It is recognised that it would be difficult for persons who are incapacitated without spectacles to continue to do active work in a civilian respirator, but I am afraid that with present shortage of rubber it is not possible to authorise the issue of civilian duty respirators to fire guards.

Mr. Hall: As soon as it is possible to release a number of civilian duty respirators, will those men who cannot see without glasses be considered?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but the supply position is difficult, especially in the element of rubber. Moreover, we are giving assistance on a fairly large scale to other parts of the Empire.

Rescue Parties, Gloucestershire.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered a statement from the Gloucestershire Emergency Committee, which has been sent to him, describing the effect on the rescue service of the transference from their

present employers of building operatives; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have read the statement sent to me by my hon. Friend. In reply to the last part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 23rd July to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins).

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he takes away these men, who alone can do this work, it will be impossible to replace them by volunteers and that, therefore, his reply does not meet the position?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure about that. I think that my hon. Friend is assuming that only building trade workers can do rescue work, but we have trained many others for rescue work and they have become quite efficient.

"Daily Worker."

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent raising of the ban on the Communist Party in India, he will now reconsider the question of removing the ban on the publication of the "Daily Worker" in this country?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not unaware of the action recently taken in India, but I do not think that that action is a conclusive argument for removing the ban on the publication of the "Daily Worker" in this country.

Mr. Bower: In view of the fact that the ban on the Communist party's newspapers in India has also been lifted, does not my right hon. Friend think it would be consistent to deprive the "Daily Worker" of the benefits of martydom and give it one more chance?

Mr. Morrison: It does not follow that what is expedient in India is expedient in Great Britain. I must consider the matter on its merits as affecting this country.

Women Detainees (Transference from Holloway Gaol).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary why it was found necessary to remove four women, detained under Regulation 18B, at three hours' notice from Holloway gaol to Aylesbury; why com-


munication with their legal advisers was refused them; whether, in view of the fact that conditions of detention are supposed to be preventive and not punitive, he will give an assurance that in future notice of at least a week will be given before any such change is made; and whether, should any of the four persons concerned so wish, he will afford them an opportunity of returning to Holloway gaol?

Mr. H. Morrison: The need for removing these women at short notice arose from special circumstances which are not likely to recur. In the short interval there was not time to arrange for them to get in touch with their solicitors, but they were told that they could communicate with them after their arrival at Aylesbury. While the responsibility for deciding in what establishment a person is to be detained must rest with the Home Secretary and not with the persons detained, I fully recognise the desirability of giving to such persons information some time beforehand of any decision to transfer them; and though I cannot guarantee that it will always be practicable to give a week's notice I can give an assurance that it will be the policy, so far as circumstances may permit, to give the information some days beforehand and to do everything possible to mitigate any inconvenience or any sense of grievance when transfers have to be arranged.

Mr. Stokes: Whilst I understand the special circumstances, does not my right hon. Friend really think it most unreasonable even in this case to uproot these people at such short notice, having regard to the fact that two of them were over 60?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that my hon. Friend will not, even by inference, associate himself with the unmannerly conduct of these ladies at the time.

Mr. Stokes: My question has to do with the treatment of these people. It is a question not of what they did but what the Home Office did. Surely it was most unreasonable, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not think so I am afraid that he goes down very much in my estimation.

Internees, Australia.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary how many of the interned refugees who were deported to Australia in

the Steamship "Dunera," two years ago, have been returned to this country or released in Australia; how many are still in internment; and whether any steps have been taken to improve the situation of the 200 Jewish refugees who have been prevented from returning to this country in consequence of recent restrictions debarring them from passing through the Panama Canal?

Mr. H. Morrison: Every effort was made both in this country and by my representative in Australia to overcome the obstacles to the return of approved internees from Australia after the Panama Canal route was closed to them, and I am glad to say that some 360 men are now on their way back. Separate figures for refugees are not available, but of the German internees who were transferred to Australia ovr 1,100, or approximately one half, have returned or are en route to the United Kingdom. According to the last report received from Australia, nearly 500 internees had been released in the Commonwealth and 119 had emigrated to other countries. There are, therefore, now rather less than 600 United Kingdom internees of German nationality in the camps in Australia; some of these are not willing to undertake the voyage back to the United Kingdom, although their release on departure from Australia has been authorised.

Personnel (Alternative Employment).

Sir William Davison: asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made in arranging for part-time war work for firemen and Civil Defence workers who are only standing by for many hours each day and would gladly undertake some munition or other work to assist the war effort; what is the total number of full-time firemen and Civil Defence workers, respectively; and how many have so far been released for urgently needed munition work?

Captain Gammans: asked the Home Secretary how many men and women in full-time employment on Civil Defence have been released for other work of national importance since the issue of the Ministry's circular to local authorities in April, 1942; how many men of the National Fire Service have been similarly released; and how many men and women have been released for industry on the rota system?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made on this subject during the course of the Debate last Thursday. I deprecate the publication of figures giving the strength of Civil Defence services but considerable numbers have been, and are being, released for other vital work.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the men themselves are very anxious to do useful but simple munition work in their spare time instead of playing darts or games of that kind, which are as irksome to them as they are not useful to the public?

Mr. Morrison: It would be a mistake if my hon. Friend assumed that the Fire Service were not doing a good job and do not have a good deal of active work to do in the course of their duty hours. On the other point I am entirely sympathetic, as I made clear in the Debate last Thursday, but it must be arranged by the appropriate authority.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop them from doing useless drill?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware that they are doing useless drill. Drill is necessary for the efficiency of the Fire Service.

Camouflage.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the effectiveness of paint for the purposes of war camouflage is dependent upon the elimination of light and shade effects by countershading; and the, breaking up of continuity of surface and outline by large masses of pigment contrasting strongly in tone such as white and mat-black; whether he is aware that objects of military importance are still being painted in complete disregard of these principles; and whether he will see that these principles are put into effect?

Mr. H. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that the principle of countershading to which he refers is well understood by those responsible for camouflage design in all Departments and is used by them wherever applicable. It is only one of the factors which must be considered in determining the most effective use of paint for camouflage purposes.

Detainees.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken to conform to the judgment of Mr. Justice Humphreys, on, 24th May, 1941, wherein it was stated that any person detained under Regulation 18B was entitled to know at the outset the precise grounds for his detention?

Mr. H. Morrison: In the case in question a clerical mistake had been made in the copy of the Order of Detention which had been served on the suspect, and it was this mistake which prompted the learned Judge's observations. As was made clear in the subsequent legal proceedings, the effect of the judgment is that a person detained under Defence Regulation 18B is entitled at the outset to be informed precisely, in the sense of accurately, of the grounds stated in the Order for his detention. I made a full statement to the House about the case on 10th June, 1941, and said I had taken steps to ensure that in future the documents issued after an Order of Detention has been made shall be carefully checked.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the practice of merely telling people that at one time they belonged to an organisation which has been banned, as precise grounds, in the sense of the term in which the learned Judge used the words?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is on another point, which has nothing to do with the one in the Question.

Mr. Stokes: It is the whole point.

Fire Watching (Women).

Mrs. Tate: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary when his proposals for making fire watching for women compulsory will be announced, and whether he will give an assurance that no announcement will be made during the Parliamentary Recess?

Mr. H. Morrison: In the course of my speech last Thursday I indicated that this question was under consideration. I should have liked to be able to make an announcement to the House, but consultations, though in an advanced stage, are not quite complete. I hope to be in a position to announce a decision very shortly.

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though strongly supporting any measure which enables women to render service, I object to women being compelled to fire watch unless they are equally compensated with men for injuries received in such service, and further, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am right in believing that if he brings in these regulations during the Parliamentary Recess they will become the law of the land, although they affect millions of women, without this House having any power whatever to assent to or dissent from the Regulations?

Mr. Morrison: On the first point raised by my hon. Friend, the compensation provisions will be the same as for women in other branches of the Civil Defence services.

Mrs. Tate: Yes, but not the same as for men.

Mr. Morrison: Any question on that should be addressed to the Minister of Pensions, as it is not my Departmental responsibility. With regard to the second point, there has been in existence for a long time a Defence Regulation, which could, of course, have been challenged. Under it this power was granted to me, and it was always known that it was a possibility; the power I am exercising is under a Defence Regulation which was in the form of an Order in Council.

Mrs. Tate: If the right hon. Gentleman is so certain that he is doing the right thing, will he make no announcement before Parliament reassembles?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid the war goes on even though the House is not sitting, and there is a certain liveliness of enemy attack which my hon. Friend cannot ask me to ignore.

Mrs. Hardie: Apart from the question of compensation, will the right hon. Gentleman state that he will not expect young women to go into the City and hang around watching business premises? Women do not object to watching in a home area, but will he be very careful in drafting regulations which would require young women who work all day in the City to go back into the City, in blitzes and in the hours of darkness, to watch banks and insurance offices?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that that point will not be overlooked. I think she will find, if this is

done—I have not yet decided to do it—that reasonable provisions of that kind will be made. I can assure the House that with all the experience I have had of fire watching, I shall never be other than careful in this matter.

Mrs. Tate: Am I right in believing that on an ordinary day I could have raised this matter under Regulation 8, but that as we are already on the Adjournment that will be impossible, and might I therefore ask that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye at an early date?

Mr. Speaker: We will wait and see how we get on with other questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF STATE.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Prime Minister, why, in the case of the Minister of State, the established custom of Ministers of the Crown being responsible to Parliament has been departed from?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I do not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that there has been any such departure. The responsibility of Ministers to Parliament is, by established custom, collective.
The action of the Cabinet is the action of each Member, and for the action of each Member, the Cabinet is responsible as a whole,
The Minister of State is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained at the time of his appointment, a Member of the United Kingdom War Cabinet for all purposes. His duties lie outside this country, and therefore would preclude the possibility of his attending in his place if he were a Member of either House of Parliament. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 19th March, last, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) as to the answering of Questions addressed to the Minister of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Exports and Imports (Shipping Priorities).

Major Lyons: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for the allocation of shipping priorities in respect of both exports and imports to and from overseas?

Mr. Attlee: The main lines of our import programme are determined by the War Cabinet. Within this programme, responsibility is divided between the Minister of Production, who deals with all imports other than food, and the Minister of Food. Subject to the broad policy laid down by His Majesty's Government, responsibility for commercial exports from this country rests with the President of the Board of Trade.

Major Lyons: In view of the fact that the Minister of Production is a recent appointment, upon which member of the Cabinet did this duty devolve before the establishment of that office?

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give personal attention to an important aspect of this problem, namely, the export of goods from this country in ships which are otherwise carrying ballast?—Did he see the statement made at the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Gibson) which appeared in "The Times," that a ship proceeding on the outward and homeward voyages carried 3,000 tons of ballast when it could have carried goods?

Mr. Attlee: I will look into that.

Major Lyons: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been a member of the War Cabinet from the start, why he cannot give the information for which I have asked about the work of one of his colleagues? Is there any reason in the public interest why this should not be disclosed?

Mr. Attlee: I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that if he wants to ask a historical Question he should put it on the Paper.

Major Lyons: This is a definite refusal to answer.

Cups and Saucers (Prices).

Mr. Arthur Hollins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a cup and saucer are being sold in the market at 1s. 10d., when the maximum price for best quality Grade A is 1s. plus 2d. Purchase Tax; and what action does he intend to take in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): In such cases complaint should be made to the local Price Regulation Committee,

but if my hon. Friend will send full details to me, I will have an investigation made.

Retail Trade (Concentration).

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the resident of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in any further concentration of retail trade, he will provide that the deciding factor shall be the public convenience and the releasing of labour for essential work rather than the financial weakness of any unit; and
(2) whether he will take measures to ensure a more equitable distribution among the smaller shopkeepers; whether he will give an assurance that the compulsory levy when it is instituted shall embrace all retail trade, be graduated in accordance with turnover and the relation of net profits to gross profits; and that any compensation shall be adequate to provide for loss of business?

Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to the full statement which he made in the House on 23rd July.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that a list of all traders compulsorily put out of business will be kept with a view to their receiving Government help to reopen after the war?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir; a list of manufacturers whose factories have been closed under the concentration of production policy is being kept by the Board of Trade, in accordance with the undertaking given in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Concentration of Production. A record is also kept of all premises requisitioned through the Control of Factory and Storage Premises, whether or not the requisitioning has resulted in the closing of the business concerned.

Mr. Hannah: Is not that answer most satisfactory?

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the suggestions put forward for post-war planned economy by traders who, for the most part, are wishful to conserve against all newcomers both existing and potential business, what steps are taken by his Department to safeguard the continued


existence of free opportunity for would-be traders and especially ex-service men?

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. Friend will realise that traders closed down by the war have a claim to consideration which cannot be overlooked, but the problem of new entrants into industry and trade after the war is not being lost sight of.

Sir L. Lyle: Would it not be an appalling situation if people coming back from the war were denied a free opportunity to start in business, and if the right to trade were controlled by a bureaucracy?

Captain Waterhouse: The claims of people coming out of the Army must undoubtedly, and will, be considered, but that does not in any way reduce the claim of those who are being put out of business to-day as a direct consequence of war conditions.

Sir L. Lyle: But is there not an idea about of preventing people from entering into business again without sanction from a bureaucracy?

Captain Waterhouse: There is no such idea, so far as I know, in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

War Damage Payments.

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make inquiries into the case of a man living at Beamish, County Durham, whose name has been given to him, and who, after suffering damage to his household effects through enemy action, has been asked by the War Damage Commission to sign a form stating that the amount payable is £41 12s., and that he is prepared to accept this sum in satisfaction of his claim; and, as no attempt was made to enter into a reasonable settlement with the householder when visited by the valuer and no opportunity is afforded on the form for the claimant to express disagreement with the amount proposed as final settlement, what remedy can be afforded in this case?

Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. Friend has called for a full report on the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him as soon as his inquiries are completed.

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware

that the general practice of those who administer the War Damage Act appears to be to offer as final settlement not more than one-third of the amount claimed, as though this were a principle of law; and whether he will take steps to have a proper valuation agreed to between the valuer and the householder, or his representative?

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir. The general practice is not as suggested in the Question. The Inland Revenue valuers who assess claims for damage to private chattels do so on the basis of the diminution in the value of the goods at the time of the damage, having regard to their condition prior to the damage and to the price at which such goods could then be bought; and they are expressly instructed to make every effort to settle claims on broad lines by agreement with claimants. Where the local valuer cannot arrive at such an agreed settlement, the case is referred to higher authority.

Mr. Lawson: Does my hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that there is a universal impression that it does not matter how much people value their damage at, they are only offered one-third at the most, and that that is the reason why I put the previous Question down, because my experience is that there is no attempt to argue about the matter at all, but that it is just a question of making an offer?

Captain Waterhouse: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statements at all; I believe they are quite contrary to the facts.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is it not a fact that many of these claims have been most satisfactorily and speedily cleared up?

Captain Waterhouse: That is my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMBINED OPERATIONS (COMMAND).

Squadron-Leader Errington: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now give an assurance that in future combined operations he will not exclude the employment of a Royal Air Force officer as commander-in-chief of all Forces involved in the particular operation?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister when the report will become available to the House of the committee appointed, under the chairmanship of Miss Violet Markham, to inquire into conditions in the women's auxiliary services?

Mr. Attlee: I have only just received the report of the committee. I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to its publication.

Miss Rathbone: May we understand that if the report is published during the Recess it will be made available to hon. Members, in view of the great interest which is taken in it?

Mr. Attlee: If the report is published, of course it will be made available to hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING POLICY.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent broadcast by Air-Marshal Harris, it is intended that Italy shall be subjected to aerial attack similar to that threatened against Germany; and whether, in view of the bombing of Cairo and Malta by Axis machines, he will ensure that military targets in Rome and other Italian cities shall now be attacked?

Mr. Attlee: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not possible to give any public indication of our future operational plans.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public in this country, and certainly the public in Malta, are unable to understand why Italy is treated with such tenderness, particularly in view of the fact that Italy is the base from which Rommel gets supplies of men and material for his forces in North Africa? Is it not time that something definite was done about bombing Italy?

Mr. Attlee: There is no policy of treating Italy with tenderness.

Sir A. Southby: Then why has not Italy been bombed?

Mr. Attlee: It has been.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Scientific Advisory Committee has been asked to make a report on the organisation of the higher direction of our scientific effort in the war?

Mr. A. Young (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir; but certain representations to the Government by leading members of the Scientific Advisory Committee and Engineering Advisory Committee are now under consideration.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to study the speech made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) in this House on 14th July, and the interruptions by the Minister of Production on that occasion, when it was stated that a report had been made, which was untrue?

Mr. Young: I will bring that question to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

Racehorses (Feeding-Stuffs).

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the further drastic reductions in the supply of feeding-stuffs to poultry, he will further curtail the supply of feeding-stuffs to racehorses?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The supply of feeding-stuffs for racehorses is limited by the number of horses in training for the permitted programme of racing. This season's programme is already very much restricted and it is not proposed to reduce it further.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of people, farmers and poultry keepers, are very seriously disturbed by this arrangement?

Mr. Hudson: The amount of feeding-stuffs consumed by racehorses is, as I have repeatedly stated, quite negligible. If it were distributed among poultry keepers, it would allow one month's balancer ration for one hen for one person out of every 300.

Leaflets.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will distribute on the widest possible scale in agricultural areas figures and diagrams to show the shipping space saved by his various proposals for bringing more land into cultivation or increasing crops on existing cultivated land?

Mr. Hudson: I share the hon. Member's view as to the importance of distributing information that would convey an adequate impression of agriculture's contribution to the national war effort, and I have in mind to arrange for the preparation of a suitable leaflet when the results of the harvest are known.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to issue a leaflet similar to No. 26 and to Bulletin No. 58 (1938) explaining to farmers the new taxation regulations?

Mr. Hudson: Bulletin No. 58 is being reprinted and will be issued shortly. Leaflets on farm bookkeeping, Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax are in preparation.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister expedite this matter, in view of the fact that there is considerable confusion among fanners in regard to the payment of taxes which they have not hitherto had to pay?

Mr. Hudson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend, like myself, has made an attempt to explain Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax in language which can be understood by the farmers.

Women's Land Army (Canteens).

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now decided to open the canteens of the Young Women's Christian Association, and similar organisations, to members of the Women's Land Army?

Mr. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) on 21st July.

Mr. Bartlett: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the decision upon this matter rests with his Department or with the War Office; and if it rests with the War Office will he the next time I put a Question to the War Office and it is transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, refuse to receive it?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot pretend that I consider the situation is satisfactory, but, as I understand it, the responsibility lies with the committee of the voluntary services, on which I am not represented and over which I have no control.

Mr. Bartlett: Which Minister is responsible for that committee?

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid that I do not know.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter which is regarded very seriously by the country? I know that he is anxious about it, and will he do his best to get the matter settled?

Mr. Hudson: As I have said, I think the present situation is highly unsatisfactory, especially, in view of the admirable work which members of the Women's Land Army are doing and the existing absence of facilities, I have, in fact, done my best, and I have to confess that in spite of my best the situation still remains highly unsatisfactory.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out who is responsible, so that we can cross-examine him?

Major Petherick: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of setting up a Ministry for the Co-ordination of Parliamentary Questions?

Domestic Poultry Keeping.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to harvest prospects, he will consider the possibility of more favourable treatment of poultry keepers?

Mr. Hudson: I can hold out no hope that supplies of feeding-stuffs available for distribution under the rationing scheme will be sufficient to warrant an increase in supplies for poultry keepers.

Sir J. Mellor: Are we to assume that Whatever the harvest there can be no upward change in the one bird per person policy so far as it concerns domestic poultry keepers?

Mr. Hudson: That is, roughly speaking, the gist of my answer.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Will the Minister not consider the slaughter of hens on a more graduated scale?

Mr. Hudson: I have repeatedly explained that I have issued no orders for the slaughter of hens.

Mr. Sloan: Will the Minister not consider taking that one ration per hen away from the racehorses and giving it to poultry keepers?

Oral Answers to Questions — VOTING FACILITIES.

Detainees.

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: asked the Home Secretary how many applications have been made by persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B to vote at Parliamentary by-elections; how many have been refused and the reasons given for such refusal?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of two such applications, both of which I felt obliged to refuse. It would not, in my opinion, be right that a person whom it is necessary to detain in custody as a preventive measure should be temporarily released, or taken under escort to attend a polling station.

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under what Regulation or authority these individuals are deprived of the franchise?

Mr. Morrison: They are deprived of their liberty under Defence Regulation 18B.

Major Petherick: While supporting the activities of my right hon. Friend under 18B, may I ask whether it is not the case that a man charged with high treason would be allowed to vote?

Mr. Morrison: I should very much doubt it. My hon. Friend had better put a Question down about it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is Sir Oswald Mosley allowed to vote?

War Workers.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many workers in war factories have difficulty, by reason of their long hours of work, in recording their votes in parliamentary elections; and whether he will consider the installation of polling-booths near the main gates of such factories?

Mr. H. Morrison: There will be general agreement that everything practicable should be done to minimise any such difficulties as those to which the hon. Member

refers. I am, however, afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one recent case some dozen war workers were prevented from recording their votes, although they had been waiting actually in the polling station for about 20 minutes before the poll closed, and is it not possible to avoid this kind of disfranchisement by a better disposition of polling stations in accordance with the working places of the population?

Mr. Morrison: I have had experience of precisely similar difficulties in peace-time elections, both general elections and by-elections, and it would be impossible to take the polling booths and try to find where every voter worked, because a large number of factories would still be at considerable distances.

Service Women.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make any further statement with regard to voting facilities for women serving with the Forces?

Mr. H. Morrison: A Defence Regulation is being made this week which will make it clear that women who are serving with the Forces have the same rights as men under those special provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Representation of the People Order which are designed to ensure that persons shall not be hindered in exercising their right to vote at Parliamentary elections by reason of their "serving on full pay as a member of any of the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of the Crown." There will therefore be no doubt that any such woman who is on the Register of Electors may apply to the Registration Officer of the place where she is registered to be placed on the absent voters list, and that whenever a new Register is prepared all such women may apply to be registered as Parliamentary electors for the constituencies for which they would have had the necessary qualification but for their service in the Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICAB DRIVERS (ILLEGAL PRACTICES).

Major Stourton: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement on his consultations with the Com-


missioner of Police and the railway police concerning cases of refusal by London taxi-cab drivers to be hired and charging more than the legal fares and, in particular, their practice of overcharging members of His Majesty's Forces moving between London railway termini at night and early morning; whether he will quote the number of cases detected and already dealt with by the police and number of cases pending trial?

Mr. H. Morrison: During the first seven months of this year a total of 142 cases of cabmen refusing to be hired or demanding more than the proper fare have been reported by the Metropolitan and City Police. Proceedings were taken in 92 of these cases, including eight which are still awaiting disposal. In 17 other cases the driver was cautioned. I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statement which I made in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's previous Question on 30th July, but he may rest assured that the Commissioner of Police will take every step in his power to put a stop to this malpractice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

Purchase Tax (Utility Ware).

Mr. Arthur Hollins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House as to the estimated amount of income which will be derived from the Purchase Tax on utility ware during the current financial year?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. The sales of such ware are not separately distinguished in the Purchase Tax returns, and under present conditions it is not possible to estimate the taxable turnover or tax yield in the current year.

Mr. Hollins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the exemption of utility pottery from the Purchase Tax which, when added to the maximum selling price, makes the purchase of pottery practically prohibitive to the working-class people?

Sir K. Wood: I regret I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I cannot agree that the present controlled retail prices are prohibitive.

Mr. Hollins: Why cannot the same concession be made to utility ware as has already been made in the case of furni-

ture and clothing? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Sir K. Wood: I know that my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that various financial considerations are involved.

Mr. MacLaren: What are they?

Income Tax (Children's Allowance).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to restrict the benefit of child allowance to those Income Tax payers who maintain their children?

Sir K. Wood: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have given careful consideration to this matter, and I am not prepared to propose an Amendment of the existing law, for the reasons I have already communicated to him.

Sir J. Mellor: Why should not a claimant be required to make a declaration that he is maintaining a child in a form similar to what is required in the case of maintaining a wife?

Sir K. Wood: I told my hon. Friend that I was afraid it was neither desirable nor practical that the Inland Revenue should undertake such a duty. It would place an almost impossible burden upon them, as any declaration made would have to be investigated.

Sir J. Mellor: Why is there more difficulty in the case of a child than in the case of a wife?

Sir K. Wood: I will look at my hon. Friend's suggestion again, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope.

Excess Rents (Taxation).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to give powers to the Income Tax authorities to prevent firms engaged in war work deducting rents for buildings from Income and Excess Profits Tax in cases where the authorities consider these excessive?

Sir K. Wood: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the powers conferred by Sections 15 and 16 of the Finance Act, 1940, for the taxation of excess rents and by Section 32 of the same Act for the disallowance of excessive expenses in computing profits for Excess Profits Tax purposes.

Mr. Lipson: Are these Sections of the Finance Act being acted upon?

Sir K. Wood: I think so, Sir, but I will inquire and inform my hon. Friend.

Mr. Benson: What machinery is there for checking up attempts to avoid taxation?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Benson: If Members send cases to the right hon. Gentleman of which they are aware, will he have them investigated?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Wage-Earners (Income Tax).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, with a view to ameliorating, the position of an Income Tax-paying wage-earner who finds he is definitely worse off by working overtime on account of the incidence of the tax and the necessity for paying others for services that he might otherwise perform for his own household in spare time?

Sir K. Wood: It is not the case that the deduction for Income Tax leaves the wage-earner without an increase in his wages as a result of taxation of overtime earnings. As regards the payment of services to which my hon. Friend refers, I fear I could not attempt to deal with this by way of special legislation.

War Damage Payments (Locked Premises).

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the fact that preventable damage is caused by premises being left locked when the keys are not readily available; and whether he will ensure that property-owners who neglect these precautions are not eligible for compensation for losses by fire so sustained?

Sir K. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to war damage by fire. The suggestion would require legislation. It was considered during the passage of the War Damage Bill through the House, but the conclusion reached was that there were great practical difficulties in including such a provision in the Act.

Sir S. Reed: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement of the Commissioner for the Midland Region that a great deal of pre-

ventable damage was caused in the recent air attack by firms leaving their premises locked and no one having access to the keys, and does he not think that despite the legislative difficulties this continuous waste and danger to the whole community should be scotched by this Measure or something approximating to it?

Sir K. Wood: I read a report of that case, but my hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that we discussed this at great length on the War Damage Bill, and came to the conclusion that it really was not practicable to adopt a suggestion of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER.

Divisional Petroleum Officers.

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many divisional petroleum officers there are; how many, in the last three months, have resigned; how many have been dismissed; and how many there are whose position is under consideration at the present time?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): There are 15 divisional petroleum officers. During the past three months three have resigned and the appointment of one other has been terminated to my regret on the grounds of grave illness; none has been dismissed. The position of one divisional petroleum officer is under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Colegate: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this indicates a very serious breakdown in the Department concerned?

Mr. Smith: I think the matter is being dealt with.

Motorists (Lifts to Persons).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether motorists are now permitted to give lifts to persons, provided no additional mileage is involved?

Mr. T. Smith: Yes, Sir, in the case of vehicles licensed by the owner.

Mr. Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in a case I know of two directors of the same firm live in the


same street, and each has to proceed to business in his own car, and will he clear up that position?

Mr. Smith: I know there are anomalies, but if my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I will be pleased to give it consideration.

Sir P. Harris: Are we allowed when travelling in a car to give lifts to hitchhikers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRICK INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he can now make a statement on the Second Report of the Committee on the Brick Industry?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend wishes me to express his deep appreciation of the work which the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) and his Committee have performed in producing such a useful Report. He has given the recommendations his very careful consideration in the light of the views of the Government Departments and the various Associations concerned with the brick industry and has arrived at the following conclusions.
The proposal to set up a National Brick Council for the Industry is accepted. Its Chairman has already been appointed. The functions of the Council will be to advise the Minister on all questions relating to:
(a) Price Fixing; (b) Quotas; (c) Operation of Care and Maintenance Scheme; (d) Over and under-sales scheme; (e) The best means of effecting correlation of production and demand;
and
to co-operate with the Ministry and the appropriate research bodies on matters affecting the production of bricks,
and
to perform such other functions as the Minister may specify from time to time, and to advise on all and any other questions concerning the brick industry, including transport, labour, fuel and other problems affecting output.
The current national output of bricks will be reduced from time to time (not necessarily at regular intervals) in order to balance supply and demand, and to maintain stocks at a proper level. This reduction will be effected, in part, by the closure of works. An Appeal Tribunal on closure decisions will shortly be set up
The "quota plan." recommended by the Committee is agreed in principle, subject to the review of the allocation of trade at least every three months. The administration of the plan will be in the hands of the Ministry of Works and Planning.
The principle of minimum prices is agreed. Separate minimum "at works" prices will be established for each type of common brick in prescribed areas, and also corresponding maximum prices. The areas will correspond to those for which Area Councils may be established in connection with the National Brick Council, with such sub-division as special circumstances may require. Prices will be fixed by Regulation and will be determined by the Ministry of Works and Planning in accordance with Government policy.
The recommendation as to a scheme in the operation of which undertakings will pay in for over-sales, and draw out for under-sales, is approved, and it is proposed to arrange for the issue of the necessary Regulation.

Sir Percy Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who is the chairman of this new Committee?

Mr. Hicks: The chairman of the new Committee is Mr. L. W. Farrow.

Mr. Thorne: Will that Report be available to Members?

Mr. Hicks: The Report has been available.

Mr. Mathers: May we have it made quite clear that this has no reference whatever to Scotland?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that Scotland is not ignored, that Scotland is being consulted, and that Scotland will be in.

Mr. Mathers: Then there is something wrong with the Minister's use of the title "Works and Planning," which does not apply to his Department in Scotland?

Mr. Hicks: Brick production is a matter in which my Department is not uninterested in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister saying that this does apply to Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May we have the hon: Gentleman's assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been consulted in this matter, since these matters have been under active consideration in Scotland on a previous occasion?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind how important it is to save bricks and use local varieties of flints which were used formerly?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business on the resumption of the Sittings of the House?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business when we meet again will be as follows:

First Sitting Day—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure. If necessary, a statement will be made on the war situation.

Second Sitting Day—Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit, which will afford an opportunity for the promised Debate on Service Pay.

Third Sitting Day—We shall ask the House to pass a special Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages, which is required for the Supplementary Vote of Credit.

During the week we shall consider any outstanding Business, including the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Amendment) Bill [Lords], the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords], and the Purchase Tax (Exemption) Orders.

Earl Winterton: May I call the attention of the Leader of the House to the point which I raised yesterday, which was supported by my right hon. Friend beside me, that an opportunity should be given, if possible, for a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, followed by a Debate, on our short and long-term borrowing policy? Will he consider

whether that can be done on the third Sitting Day on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Sir S. Cripps: We will certainly consider that.

Mr. Greenwood: May I take it that this proposed Business is really provisional, and that the House will understand that should circumstances so change the programme might be changed?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, it is provisional in the light of the present circumstances.

Major Milner: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will open the Debate on Service Pay and Allowances by a statement of their intentions?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not know. I have not considered that matter yet.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1942 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR).

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 109.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Housing (Rural Workers) Bill.

National Service (Foreign Countries) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

JEWS (FIGHTING SERVICES).

Mr. Hannah: Who can count the dust of Jacob, or the number of the fourth part of Israel? Three thousand four hundred years have rolled away since this question was first asked. I think its context in the Old Testament makes it fairly clear that at that time it was highly rhetorical. To us at the present time this question, in a rather different form perhaps, is most eminently practical. It was answered in this House just a few days ago—10,000 men. There were supplementaries, of course. What Minister of the Crown could ever get on without supplementaries? In this particular case the supplementaries were 23,000. Approximately the same number weekly would be forthcoming in this House but for your skill, Mr. Speaker, in stemming the tide. Those supplementaries are all right enough. The basic number of 10,000 is the same as was at the disposal of the grand old Duke of York in his not very obviously useful military operations. If I had to confine myself to my own poor vocabulary, I should describe it as woefully inadequate. If I were permitted to browse in the rich verbiage that grows in the Vale of Evesham, I should snap out that it was "most unsatisfactory." The question,


again in a rather different form, was answered in another place on 16th April this year. The other place in this particular case was the floor of the Senate in Washington. The speaker was Senator Johnston, of Colorado, and his estimate was 200,000, half of them within 24 hours. Of course, the questions are not absolutely identical. The 10,000 were actually armed, the 200,000 had yet to come together. If the sum, however, be worked out, it will be discovered that the American estimate is exactly 20 times the British one. It may have been that the Senator was, to a certain extent, swayed by that spirit of buoyant optimism that we are all accustomed to associate with the American West. He is a very prominent representative of the American Committee for a Jewish Army. The object of this committee, as officially stated in its own paper, is this:
To bring about, by legal means and in accordance with the laws and foreign policy of the United States, the formation of a Jewish Army, based on Palestine, to fight for the survival of the Jewish people and the preservation of democracy. This Army, composed primarily of Palestinian Jews and refugees, as well as volunteers from free nations, will fight on all required battlefields side by side with the United States, Great Britain and the other Allied Nations.
I welcome this Jewish Army, and I have, with enthusiasm, joined the English Committee, because I believe from the very bottom of my heart that the future of the world is largely bound up with loyal Anglo-American co-operation, I think I realise the difficulties as well as anybody. I lived for a dozen years in the United States, and I have to a certain extent viewed this country from the other side of the Atlantic. There have been great misunderstandings in days gone by between the two countries. It was a terrible to-do between 1776 and 1783. The Americans complained that, although they were not represented in this House, they were taxed by it. To a very large extent I think we have put that right. America is represented in this House. I think we should all agree most admirably, and certainly very vocally, represented, and yet we make no claims whatever now to tax Americans.
If we can get any soldiers from Jewry, it is surely all to the good. We realise that we are making efforts far beyond the limit of our own population. I expect we have all had experiences, when going to and fro in our own constituencies, of the

terrible hardships that conscription is bringing to so many of our people. I know a certain household, the head of which, already working in munitions and 42 years old, was forced to join the Army, although his wife is practically a nervous wreck, and there are six children, all boys, whom she is quite incapable of controlling. We know that there are tragedies of the same kind to be found throughout the length and breadth of this land. Jewry has no choice as between the Axis and the democratic Powers for other faiths are wooed by both sides. The Axis has declared irrevocable war upon Jewry in all portions of the world. I feel that we ought definitely to pledge the honour of Britain that we will find new homes for the Jews who are persecuted in all parts of Europe at the present time, if they will stand side by side with us in this terrible emergency.
I know that the position in Palestine is delicate, most delicate. This is a moral question, and if it were approached in a purely material way, I realise the tremendous embarrassment that might be caused to the Government, and I trust that I should be the very last person who would want to bring about anything of that kind. It might likewise do great harm throughout the world. The bulk of the population of Palestine consists of the people who are generally known as Arabs. They represent the relics of practically every race that has ever occupied that country, but the vast majority of them were converted to the faith of Islam during the seventh century. There is a small but most important Christian community, and there are various other small minorities of different kinds. I suppose that the little Samaritan community is probably the best-known. But still, broadly speaking, the question of the Arabs in Palestine brings up the problem of our relations with the faith of Islam, the great Mohammedan world, with which we are confronted in all lands, from Sierra Leone to Borneo, most of all in India itself. Nobody can believe that we have any quarrel with Islam. Are we not fighting to the very death to hold inviolate from inhuman foes that city which above all others at the present time is the capital of the Moslem faith—Cairo, the victorious town, with its great university of El-Azhar? Have we not heard only yesterday further details about the way in which the Moslem Government


presented a site in Cairo for the building of a great Christian cathedral and our reciprocating by providing a site in the capital of this Empire for a Moslem mosque? Shades of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, King of England, and of Saladin, Sultan of the East! It surely is magnificent if at last we are getting together in such a way as that.
Our propaganda is the worst in all the world. It was well described by one of my colleagues at Oberlin College—not very felicitously perhaps, but not entirely untruthfully—as "proper goose." Japan tells the whole East of the recent building of a mosque in Tokyo. We are doing far too little to convince Moslems all over the world of the way in which we are holding out to them in every way we can the right hand of fellowship. If the Arabs fight side by side with us, I think they should definitely be promised that they will be allowed to remain a majority in the Holy Land. What could be a better title than the prescription of more than 14 centuries, in addition to the presence of the third most sacred city in all the Moslem world—for Jerusalem as a holy city is second only to Mecca and Medina—and the careers of two of the greatest and best men that Islam ever gave to the world, the Caliph Omar in the seventh century and the Sultan Saladin in the twelfth?

Mr. MacLaren: That was before the hon. Member went to America.

Mr. Hannah: Well, yes, it was. I am almost deluged with Jewish propaganda—I have a sample of it here—and, perhaps rather unwisely, I read it every week during the long railway journey between Bilston and this place. There are a great many things in it that impress one. The Jews themselves are very deeply divided. Those Jews who claim that the Holy Land is irrevocably and for ever theirs, I would, from the historical point of view, refer to certain events which happened in the reigns of Vespasian and Hadrian. I need not trouble the House with details. Perhaps I have wandered too much into history already. I would also say that it is impossible to pour a quart into a pint pot, and that, after all, it does seem to me quite possible that Jews can make themselves happy in other lands. I had the privilege of spending some time in the Henry Street Settlement on the East Side of New York,

a Jewish welfare centre, in which I was very nearly the only non-Jew. At that time a certain amount of stir had been caused by some sort of Jewish Convention—I cannot give actual chapter and verse at this moment—voting that America was their promised land, and Washington their Zion. Of course, that naturally caused rather obvious retorts about right hands losing their cunning. But I maintain that anybody who has seen the Jews in New York will not for one moment believe that it is impossible for them to be happy in any other country than Palestine.
The history of Mohammedanism is very largely connected with the history of Jewry. I would especially remind the House of those glorious days when, under the black flag of Abbas, in the Caliphate of Bagdad, Moslem and Jew worked together magnificently to promote one of the highest cultures which the world has ever seen. They gave us algebra, among other things. Then take the case of Moslem Spain. It was there in fact that Moses Maimonides, perhaps the greatest ornament in philosophy that Jewry ever knew, lived and taught under Moslem rule. Later on, when unfortunately for themselves—materially at least—the Spaniards expelled the Jews from their soil, they found new homes in Moslem lands in the neighbourhood of Salonika. Why cannot that come again? There, I think, is the whole crux of the problem. Have we done our obvious duty? Have we impressed upon the leaders of Palestinian Mohammedanism and of Jewry the need for reviving those glorious days when they worked together so splendidly for the culture and learning of the world? Have we taught it to their children? Have we done our best to produce an atmosphere in the Holy Land that would make for real co-operation?
Some of my Jewish friends a few years ago took me to see a Jewish film in this city. I was much impressed with the undoubtedly splendid material results that the Jews had brought about in Palestine. They are marvellous. But I was not entirely satisfied. One of the pictures represented mixed bathing in the Mediterranean, off the shore of Tel-Aviv, and I could not help feeling that the Jewish ladies shown there had somehow or other been raiding the laundry bags of the Garden of Eden. I cannot profess to be a great authority on the


fashions of girls' dresses, but it was fairly obvious, even to myself, that the difference between the modes of the Garden of Eden and of Tel-Aviv were not very great. One can easily realise how terribly that would shock the Moslem community. I am told that it also shocks, to a very large extent, some of the older communities of Jews in the Holy Land.
This question of a Jewish Army brings up in a very acute form the whole position of our Empire in the world. It is nearly 2,000 years since the greatest of all the poets of Rome, in words that are still alive, tried to set forth the destiny of that great Empire:
Others, I grant you indeed, may more gracefully model their bronzes, or better draw out fair forms from the snow-white marble, argue their cases in courts, or tell of the stars in their courses. Thine be the part, Oh Rome, to govern with mandate imperial, Proudly to conquer the proud, showing mercy unto the humbled.
I do not stop to inquire what Virgil would write about the sawdust Caesar, who struts about the streets of Rome to-day. I would rather suggest what is to be our place in the world.
Let others, by blitzing, build empires on blood,
And laugh at free peoples' tears.
Be thine, O Britain, to stem this flood,
And soothe the discords of years.
I was very much impressed by a recent address in the Jerusalem Chamber by the Bishop of Chichester, in which he told us, talking about his recent visit to Sweden, that Scandinavian opinion was practically unanimous as to the deep concern the Germans feel at the present time over their tremendous unpopularity almost everywhere to-day. Germany has encountered the hatred of all the lands she has overrun. How many millions of troops would it be worth to Hitler to have the good-will of those subject nations?
Jewry is deeply divided. If, in her agony, she can give us nothing nobler than a stale rehash of that appalling vindictiveness that runs through the old Testament, then I fear that she will add new fuel to the flames of anti-Semitism that are blazing through half the world. But there is another Jewry. I look into the face of One who bade us love our enemies, and meant it: a man of Jewish race, a practical Man of affairs. We must

never forget that, in the permanent history of the world, moral forces are far stronger than any material ones. China has outlasted the companions of her youth because she has always relied on moral, rather than on material, forces. The Roman Empire continued to exist centuries after any victories had been won by her legions. This is the day of battle, man against man, tank against tank, ship against ship, plane against plane. No one counsels peace to-day. I should be the last to want in any way to hold back any sanction of power from the international authority that we hope will give permanent peace to the world in the happier days to come; nor would I, for one moment, advocate putting any confidence or trust whatever in what is obviously utterly unreliable. But I want to impress, especially in connection with this Jewish Army for which we hope, the absolute necessity of heeding chiefly moral forces, and of considering the position of Jewry in relation to all the other races concerned. Some people are inclined to tell us that the British Empire is nearing its end, that our story is as a tale that is nearly told. I do not for one moment believe it. Our great career may be only just beginning, because the world needs us so tremendously. Sometimes I wish that this House always remembered that strong sense of mission for which it is so famous through all the centuries. Only the other day I was reading an account of the staid, dignified, courtly proceedings of this House by a rather flippant poet. He put it this way: he wrote these disgraceful lines:
Thy senate is a scene of civil jar,
Chaos of contrarieties at war
Where sharp and solid, phlegmatic and light,
Discordant atoms meet, ferment and fight,
Where Obstinacy takes his sturdy stand,
To disconcert what Policy has planned;
Where Policy is busied all night long
In setting right what Faction has set wrong,
Where flails of oratory thresh the floor
Which yields them chaff and dust and nothing more.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a breach of Privilege! What a blessed word that is! Yet I am afraid we cannot very well proceed against the poet because he has been in his grave for 150 years. Those lines are from the "Expostulation" of a famous English poet whose name, I believe, should be pronounced Cooper, but, if you want anyone to know whom you mean, it is rather better to call him Cowper, as it is spelled. With all


the earnestness that I can possibly command, I do want to impress upon the Government that there is a very broad feeling, both in the United States and in this country, that we are not making the most of the man-power and the reservoir of good will that exists in Palestine. This American Committee for a Jewish Army includes a very large number of prominent Americans in all walks of life. It has, I understand, received the blessing of the Secretaries of State for both Army and Navy, and of Mrs. Roosevelt herself. Those Members of this House who have American wives will realise what that means. I ask the Government very sympathetically indeed to consider the possibility of bringing some Jewish Army into actual being. If I have said a single word that is likely to embarrass them or to worsen the serious international relations that exist at the present time, I desire most unhesitatingly to retract it. I should like to apologise for breaking the record which I had only an hour ago of never having addressed this House for more than 13 minutes at a time. But let us all remember that we are on trial as we never were before. The world depends to a very large extent on what we can do. We must never lose sight of the undoubted fact that moral forces are eternal and that mere physical power falls by its own weight. If we fail now, our children will arise up and call us accursed.

Colonel Cazalet: Anyone who follows the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) will indeed find it hard to maintain the high standard of eloquence and humour we always come to associate with his speeches. I cannot pretend to cover the same ground. He has taken us from New York to Mecca; he has dealt with subjects as varied as algebra and mixed bathing. I wish to address myself to a much more limited subject. I hope that nothing I say will in any way offend those Arab people with whom we are fighting to-day. I have no desire to raise, either by imputation or otherwise, the question of the whole future of Palestine. It is sufficient to say that unless victory crowns our efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere, neither Jew, Arab nor Christian will have much to say about the future of the Middle East. The war is approaching Palestine for the third time. Yesterday in the columns of "The Times" we read a report of how the Germans are

accumulating supplies with perhaps the intention of attacking Cyprus, or, it may be, Syria. The war may come to Palestine from the north or the south or from the west, and all that I ask the Government is that, if it does come, they should endeavour, within the limits of human possibility, to do everything that is possible to see that every man and woman can play his or her part in helping to defend the Holy Land, not simply because it is their homeland that they are defending but in the much wider interests of the Allied victory.
The story of the Jewish desire to play their part in the war is a long one. I have no intention of going into it to-day. Suffice it to say that it is now over three years since they made an offer of their services unconditionally, For various reasons the Government of the day thought it unwise to capitalise this effort into concrete form. A few thousands out of tens of thousands were allowed to join up and then only under various conditions. A year later, two years ago, they were offered an independent Jewish force. After waiting for another year this offer was withdrawn. I have no desire to question reasons and argue about the decisions of the past, or the lost opportunities and the mistakes that may have been made. All I am concerned with are the present and the immediate future. What are the pertinent facts? I would like to bring them to the notice of the Secretary of State for War, who, I believe, is going to reply, and I should like to have his attention, as I desire to be accurate in the statement of these facts.
At the present moment, excluding, I believe, 2,000 recruits who joined up in the month of July, there are some 14,000 Jews serving in various units of the Armed Forces—the Army, the Air Force, and a small contingent with the Navy. They are scattered all over the Middle East, and they are doing for the most part static jobs. None of them are in fighting units. Those in the six companies of the Buffs are all engaged in static jobs. There is another point that I would like the Secretary of State to consider sympathetically. These men, in various capacities, have fought alongside fighting units, in ancillary services, in Greece, Crete, Libya and Syria. Their work and conduct have been praised by their leaders and generals. But to-day they are receiving only two-thirds of the pay and


allowances which British troops, alongside them, are receiving. I always thought it was a cardinal principle of the authorities in this country that men who fought side by side against the same foe should receive equal pay.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: What about Indian troops? They do not receive the same pay.

Colonel Cazalet: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will admit that the cost of living in India is not comparable with that in Palestine, The cost of living in Palestine is comparable with the cost of living in this country. I am not saying that Indian troops should not receive more pay; I am only saying that these Jewish troops are receiving two-thirds of the pay and allowances of British soldiers in a place where the cost of living is comparable with our own. This has meant that private charities have had to supplement to a great degree the allowances paid to the dependants of serving soldiers. In this country provision is made for the parents of serving soldiers, but for Jews who are serving there is no provision of that kind whatsoever, and this is particularly hard on Jewish troops, because a large proportion of them, since they arrived in Palestine, arranged for their parents to go there and are supporting out of their limited resources. I feel that the Secretary of State for War might in this matter go some way to meet what is a real need of the Jewish soldier. Apart from these 14,000, there are some 6,000 to 7,000 men of the 23,000 Home Guards, who have been sworn in, who are whole-time in their job, paid, armed and partially trained, together with some 1,500 A.T.S. This is the whole effective contribution which the Jews so far have been allowed to make.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it perfectly clear that he is speaking of the Jews in Palestine? Jews throughout the world are serving in the British Army

Colonel Cazalet: I am glad my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of making it clear that I am referring solely to the Jews in Palestine. The whole of my remarks to-day are concerned merely with how we can, in the most effective and efficient way possible, make the best use of man- and woman-power in Palestine, and Palestine alone. What can be

done and what should be done in the near future? The Jewish Agency, apparently, is the only body which can speak with authority with regard to Jews in Palestine and which alone can "deliver the goods." They are confident that if certain steps were taken another 20,000 Jewish fighting soldiers could be raised immediately and that in addition the Home Guard figure could be raised to something like 40,000 or 50,000—all this without disturbing the essential war industry or agriculture of the country. I do not want to go into the figures of how these particular numbers are arrived at, although I have them here as regards the number of men between the ages of 18 and 20 and 20 and 65. These numbers are the considered opinion of the Jewish Agency, and I have every confidence that under certain conditions these numbers could be achieved within a relatively short time.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: My hon. and gallant Friend says that 20,000 more could be recruited in Palestine, not including the Home Guard. Can he say how the other 200,000 are to be raised?

Colonel Cazalet: I dissociate myself altogether from the idea of raising a Jewish Army of 200,000. I am not asking for that to-day. The 200,000 referred to by my hon. Friend who preceded me refers to a Jewish Army which could be raised in the United States and elsewhere. I take no responsibility for that figure of 200,000. I have said that the only body which can speak with authority is the Jewish Agency, and they agree that the figure I have given—20,000—is the effective number that could be raised in a short time. I have no desire to give any support to a figure greater than that. What are the conditions under which these additional recruits could be raised? We are not asking to-day for any separate Jewish Army; all we are asking is that these men might serve together as an integral part of the British Army, commanded by the British. We would very much like them to have a badge, like almost every other unit of the British Army. They should be known not as a Jewish Army but as a Palestine Jewish Force. You have the nucleus already with the police and companies of the Buffs. What they are asking for is to be made fighting units. At present they


drive lorries, wash pots, guard bridges and so on. What they are asking for is to be allowed to fight with rifles and, if necessary, die in the defence of their homeland in order to make their contribution towards an Allied victory.
What are the objections? I am only too glad to face them. The first is that the Arabs will object, but I am sure that the majority of Arabs—I am not talking about the discontented minority who are the followers of the Mufti—are as desirous as the Jews of defeating the common enemy. I do not believe that the Arabs as a whole will oppose something which is in the common interest, namely, the defence of their own homeland. Besides, the case has already been admitted. A Jewish force has already been raised, and in these days, when war is so near to the boundaries of Palestine, no political considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of giving these Jews the unalienable right of self-defence of their own homeland. The second objection is that the Jews might make political use of this armed force when the war is over. Surely the answer to that is this: This force is an integral part of the British Army. If it is considered right, they will have to hand in their arms, like the rest, when the war is over. After all, this small force of 20,000 can be in no position to stand up against the united force of ourselves and the United States. They know well enough that the Jewish Home in Palestine could not exist for 24 hours unless they had the support of both this country and the United States.
The other argument is lack of arms. I believe there is some substance in that argument, but I should like to say that the Jews have been standing in the queue, asking for arms, for nearly three years. I read an article to-day which said there were 30,000 or 40,000 Poles in Palestine, with the possibility of the number being increased to 100,000, and it went on to say that equipment and arms were slowly but definitely coming forward. Yet there is never anything for the Jews. When the Iraqi army wants arming something is provided, but if it is for the Jews the answer is that there are none available. Surely it is possible out of the total rationed strength of the Army in the Middle East of over 1,000,000 for enough rifles to be found for 20,000 men. Surely, if there are sympathy at home and goodwill in the Administration in Palestine,

this is not something that is beyond the powers of achievement of the British Forces in the Middle East. Moreover, I believe that a good many of the things which a Home Guard wants, bombs and so on, could be manufactured in Palestine. There are some 400 of the best engineers and scientists in the world domiciled in Palestine at the present time. There is another aspect. The Jews know every inch of the country, and if war should come to Palestine, their services would be invaluable. I believe that purely on military grounds we cannot afford to dispense with the specialised knowledge which the Jews could contribute if war should ever come to that area.
The material is good. I have already said, but I want to repeat, that wherever the Jews have played their part already, in Syria, Greece, Crete and Libya, they have won golden opinions from their generals, who have publicly given expression to their views. Is not this an opportunity when Jew and Arab might well unite in a cause which is common to both of them? Is it not possible that out of the sacrifices and services which they will both have to make, and are making to-day, for the defence of their homeland, a new understanding may arise and emerge between these two races, which must forever dwell together in that part of the world, which will be to the eternal advantage of both? The Jews have been fighting this war, our war, against Hitler for ten long years. What is happening to the Jews in Europe to-day is beyond the imagination of ordinary tolerant, decent, Christian English men and women. Tens of thousands are being starved to death, shot or massacred. Poland is becoming one vast mass execution yard for the Jews from the whole of Europe. I plead with the Government to give that comparatively small Jewish community in Palestine a chance of fighting, a chance of defending their own homes, a chance of showing the Jews in Europe that somewhere in some part of the world the Jews are not utterly defeated and overwhelmed. I believe it would give to those poor masses in Europe a wonderful moral sense of comfort in this terrible hour through which they are passing. I believe also it would be looked upon with great favour in the United States of America. Pray God the war may never come to the Holy Land, but if it does, let it never be said that while we ourselves were unable


to defend the Holy Land at the same time we deprived those who could do so, who wanted to do so, of the necessary arms, thereby inflicting upon them annihilation and upon ourselves eternal shame and disgrace.

Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to say a few words on this very important and vital matter on behalf of the Executive of the Labour Party and the National Council of the Labour Party, which have given it very careful consideration. We in the Trade Union and Labour movement are fully aware of the fact that for very many years before we felt the force of the Nazi terror, the Jewish people on the Continent bore the first brunt of that brutal attack. Our sympathy and our good will go out to them because the first fury of this Nazi terror fell upon them. As the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) said, none of us can read about events in the part of Europe occupied by Hitler without feeling a sense of horror and shame at the terrible things that are happening in this century. It is really one of the worst episodes in the history of the world. Our sympathy, our whole hearts, go out to the Jewish people in the ordeal through which they are passing at this time. The bodies with which I am associated understand and fully appreciate how the Jewish people must feel in these days when the war gets daily and hourly nearer to Palestine. As the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham said, there is the danger of an attack upon Palestine from more than one direction. They are naturally concerned—and I hope the Government fully realise that concern—by the possibility of a sudden attack upon them, and particularly they are concerned about the possibility of an attack being made upon them when they are not as well prepared to meet it as they would desire to be.
I understand it is for those reasons that the most recent proposals have been put forward. I think it is desirable to bring the House back to what I understand are the immediate proposals. There is a proposal which, although it would be possible to discuss it on the Adjournment, I think it would be better at this moment not to discuss; I refer to the proposal to create a Jewish Army including Jews from all over the world. That matter has been discussed in the House and it has been dis-

cussed in another place; there is a good deal of controversy about it and it excites considerable attention on the other side of the Atlantic. But when the bodies with which I am associated considered this matter recently, their consideration was of proposals which I want to repeat to the House, although they were referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham. There are two proposals having the sanction of the Jewish Agency, which speaks for responsible bodies of Jews. The first proposal is that the British Government should be asked to unify the existing Jewish units into battalions, to create, to train, and to equip the maximum number of new Jewish companies, and to mould the whole of these into a Jewish fighting force within the British Army; and for this purpose we gather that at least another 20,000 men could be enlisted immediately in Palestine. The second proposal is to recruit, to train, and to equip forthwith all the available 40,000 or 50,000 additional Jewish men for Home Guard duties, and it is stated that that is possible without taking them away from agriculture and industry until the emergency requires that that shall be done. It seemed to us, therefore, that these two proposals, which I hope the House will discuss for the moment outside the larger proposal for a Jewish Army including Jews from all over the world, are put forward because of the fact that daily and hourly the danger approaches Palestine, and that they are born of a desire to create in Palestine a force, both in the Army and in the Home Guard, that will be able to defend their own country against a possible attack.
I am sure that all of us appreciate and realise that this desire on the part of the Jewish people in Palestine to defend their ancient land, a part of which they are now recreating, is a very natural one and one that calls for the sympathy of every one of us. Those of us who have read about what the Jews have done in Palestine in the last 20 years, their creative and reconstruction work, and the new land they are building, cannot have failed to be impressed. Therefore, we all realise their anxieties about the possibility of attack, and I am sure, if an attack comes, they will defend Palestine with very great valour and courage, and with the added sense that they are now defending the new home which they have built up. It is a natural anxiety and


desire in war for people who feel together and form part of the same community to fight together. The Secretary of State for War is a Member for a Welsh division, and he will know, because he is not entirely new to the War Office, that the War Office on matters of this kind have not shown much imagination. They have often been dull to the fact that people will fight better, particularly in moments of great emergency, if they have around them people who are like them and have roots like them. Many times we have made representations about this to the War Office, without very much success. We believe, and the Secretary of State for War must know that his constituents believe it too, that our own people would be a very much more effective force in the British Army, if more imagination were shown in recruiting them, and bringing them together. It is a natural desire, and we have tried to impress it upon previous Ministers. We have had promises, but very little has been done. I mention it to show that I enter into the desire of people who wish to fight together.
I share very fully this desire of the Jewish people, and we want the Government and the Secretary of State for War to give their fullest consideration to the problem. Objections have been raised, which I do not wish to refer to in detail. One of the main objections is the fear of the Government that if they conceded even this modified form of a Jewish fighting force, there would be very serious political repercussions. It is very difficult for Members of Parliament and outside bodies, like the body with which I am associated, to make a definite pronouncement upon a matter of that kind. We have not the requisite knowledge to enable us to arrive at a decision as to whether the Government's fears about possible political repercussions are well grounded. We are, however, mindful of the fact that in days gone by this fear of political repercussions has been used as a cloak to cover up certain policies, and as a buttress to support a policy of appeasement not merely in the Middle East but everywhere. It is for this reason that, when we hear it now, we question the Government whether this is the real reason. On a matter of this kind the final decision must obviously rest with the Government, and we fully appreciate that they have to take into account possible political repercussions. We hope, how-

ever, that they will judge this matter objectively, and that there will be no hangover in other Departments, such as the War Office or the Foreign Office, of the old appeasement days. We desire that everything which can be done should be done to enable the Jewish people to defend their home if the attack comes.
We desire the Government to mobilise on our side, not merely the forces in Palestine, but the forces all over the world. We believe that some statement on this problem would do a good deal to damp down something which, I am afraid, is growing in our country, namely, anti-Semitic feeling. I know something of the attempts to fan this feeling among working-class circles. Anti-Semitism has been used on the Continent to destroy every section of the Labour movement, and I should like to give this warning and let it go out to the people with whom I am associated. Let them beware of it. There are two problems which confront us: Firstly, the possibility of attack upon Palestine, and enabling the Jewish people to be reasonably well prepared to meet that attack if it comes, and, secondly, the satisfying of Jewish sentiment. From our point of view we wish the proposals to be judged by the Government upon their merits, and I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that they will be so considered, and that, if not all, some of the points will be conceded.

Captain De Chair: I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), because he showed a disarming candour when he referred to the difficulty which he and the members of his party found in reaching a decision upon this subject. He recognises that it is difficult for people in this country to know the significance of the possible reactions to a proposal of this kind. As one who has recently returned to this country from Palestine, I will try to give the House some idea of the relative forces involved in these proposals. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), in an enchanting speech, referred to long train journeys between Bilston and the House of Commons. While he was on those long journeys, I was tramping the tracks in Palestine, and during that time I had a real opportunity to get to know the people of Palestine. I mean both Arabs and Jews. We saw in our daily contacts a tremendous number of Arabs and Jews.


The soldiers there really came to love Palestine. They saw no prospect of getting back to this country for many years and, when they were campaigning in Iraq or Syria, if they spoke of home it was usually of Palestine that they were thinking. When I first went there I camped in the Jordan Valley and visited many Jewish agricultural settlements and was tremendously impressed. I took an archeological society into one, and we were stopped at the gate and asked to remove our boots. We were accustomed to taking them off when we entered mosques, and we thought that this was some religious custom with which we ought to comply, but it was merely because there was an epidemic of swine fever in the neighbourhood and they did not want us to bring it into the settlement.
The Arab is tremendously susceptible to Axis propaganda. He is very impressed by propaganda of any kind, and we know how in the Middle East the barometer of Arab, opinion would go up and down according to our successes in the Western Desert or military developments in any other part of the world. You cannot visit Arab villages, often perched up on crags which are quite inaccessible to any wheeled vehicle, and sit down with the Muktahr and his male relatives in a circle in his house, drinking coffee, without soon getting to know how these people feel about things. At the same time we became very much aware of the burning love of the Holy Land which the Jews who have settled there feel and their determination to be allowed to play a part in the defence of the country.
But if the hon. Member asks me what will be the reaction upon the Arab communities in the Middle East if the proposal to set up a purely Jewish Army in Palestine were adopted, under British administration, I can say that in my opinion it would be disastrous. I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that in the highly excitable state of Arab opinion it would be extremely dangerous. I do not say that we should rule out the possibility of any alternative constructive proposal, but we have to watch the whole of this question of Arab reaction very closely. We must bear in mind that some very important Arab personalities are in Axis countries, under the protection of the Axis Powers, and it is easy to see, from the

drift of Axis broadcasts, that Herr Hitler is throwing out the suggestion of a free Arab Government. He already has with him the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini, and Raschid Ali al Gailani, who led the Iraq revolt and was the former Prime Minister, and he has an extremely capable general in Fawzi Kuwuckji who led the Palestine rebels in 1936 and who was a continual thorn in our flesh during both the Iraq and Syrian campaigns. It is easy to see how, playing upon Arab susceptibilities, and building up in their minds the prospect of a future German victory, he could promise them an Arab Government on quite spectacular lines. Set off against this is a very considerable Jewish unrest. People in this country are inclined to think that the main unrest is usually Arab, but there is also a considerable amount of Jewish unrest at different times, which flared up, for example, at the time of the "Patria" disaster. I remember, when that ship carrying refugees from Rumania was blown up in Haifa harbour and rolled over on her side, the feeling among the Jews was intense. It is impossible to ask them to see in an impartial light the difficulties in which the British Government found themselves. It is impossible to argue with them that these were illegal immigrants in excess of the quota to which the Government had agreed. It is simply a matter of passionate conviction that Palestine ought to accept Jewish refugees whenever they come from Europe, and one can readily understand their point of view.

Mr. Silverman: I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to be absolutely fair, but is it quite correct to say that the immigrants in the "Patria" would have been in excess of the quota? Is it not the case that the offer made to the Government was that these people should have been allowed in as part of the quota, and not in excess of it?

Captain De Chair: I quite see the hon. Member's point, and it was a point made at the time, but the difficulty, as I understand it, was that these people had sailed outside the quota, as illegal immigrants, and the question was whether they should be accepted as legal immigrants. These are difficulties which are continually cropping up, and it is impossible to maintain a balance without offending one party or the other over such vital matters.


The defence of Palestine is a matter of great concern not only to the Jews but to the Arabs as well. There are many Arabs in Palestine who are pro-Mufti, and in some villages they will tell you that they are all members of the Husseini party, which is the Mufti's party. But the majority of the Arabs, who are admittedly at times liable to have their imagination stirred and to become excitable, would like to remain at peace under British administration and certainly not be overrun by the Germans. We always have to face up to the difficulty of their susceptibility to German propaganda, which has been extremely successful. How can we stimulate and canalise the local patriotism Which is there without creating a Jewish army which in my opinion would arouse the susceptibilities of the Arabs or, if you raised both an Arab and a Jewish Army, would inevitably lead to a clash between them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) laid particular stress on the American point of view, and I think that is a matter to which attention should be given: He would perhaps be interested in a very remarkable leading article in the New York "Times" on 22nd January, because he would recognise that its opinion on the subject is extremely significant.

Colonel Cazalet: I was arguing in favour of an independent Palestine force as an integral part of the British Army under British administration.

Captain De Chair: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend wants a single Jewish unit under British administration but that it should be a homogeneous Jewish unit. I think that he would be interested in this particular point raised in a leading article in the New York "Times":
A resolution introduced in the House of Representatives recently by Mr. Somers of New York requests President Roosevelt to direct the State Department to petition Great Britain 'to take such action as may be necessary to permit the organisation of all-Jewish military units in Palestine'. There has been no action on this resolution; but the proposal which it advances has received the endorsement of some members of the Government and a number of deeply sincere and well-meaning people. … For two reasons we believe that these well-meaning people are mistaken and that it would be unwise for the United States to attempt to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government in this matter.

This is from a leading article in the New York "Times," and great signifiance should be attached to it when we are considering the reaction to these matters in the United States. The article goes on to give various reasons why they do not advocate pressing the British Government to adopt that policy.

Colonel Cazalet: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend knows that the New York "Times" has long been owned and run by Jews who are anti-Zionist.

Captain De Chair: That is possible, and it is for that reason that they go on to argue against setting up a Jewish Army. I am talking about the reaction in America, and I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the New York "Times" is a considerable source of public opinion in America.
I would like to try and meet the argument of the hon. Member for Llanelly as to what constructive measures can be taken in view of existing conditions in Palestine in order to meet the situation. The present arrangements for recruiting out there seem to me to be a trifle archaic. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) referred to the existing companies of the Palestine Buffs. There is something a little bizarre about Jews and Arabs in Palestine being recruited for the defence of the Holy Land and finding themselves joining companies of the Royal East Kent Regiment. It calls up a picture of a march down the Old Kent Road rather than the Seven Sisters approach to Jerusalem, or something of that kind. We are an incalculable people in the matter of our nomenclature. It was said long ago that the Lord Privy Seal was so called because he was neither a lord nor a privy nor a seal. I cannot see what inducement to recruitment in Palestine it would be for the Arabs and Jews to be members of the Royal East Kent Regiment. It is a fact that when Arabs and Jews are recruited they go to Sarafand, where they train together. I have seen Arabs and Jews drilling side by side on the square at Sarafand, and although they do not appear very military in their bearing when they first arrive, I can assure the House that after a few weeks' training these companies have a discipline which would be a credit to the Brigade of Guards.
It seems to me that here is a framework within which the Government could consider some improvement in the present recruiting arrangements for Palestine. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham suggested that the companies of the Buffs should form the nucleus of a Jewish unit in Palestine, but that, I think, would immediately rouse the antagonism of the Arabs. These companies are already Jewish and Arab companies, and if we use the Palestine companies of the Buffs as a nucleus for some Palestine unit it would be essential to preserve the even balance of the companies between the Jewish and Arab recruits. I do not see any reason why this should not go a long way to meeting the demand for some unit in which local patriotism could share in the defence of the Holy Land without engendering hatred between Arabs and Jews. I remember a similar friendly rivalry between the two regiments which comprised my own regiment in Palestine. We had companies of the Blues and the Life Guards showing a stimulating rivalry in their activities which was wholly beneficial to the efficiency of the composite regiment. I think that we could get something of the same kind if we had Jewish and Arab companies in the same unit working side by side as we have already in the Buffs. A word of tribute ought to be paid to those in Palestine who have been carrying on the recruiting of Arabs and Jews, because they have managed to create at Sarafand an atmosphere of co-operation and good will which should form a nucleus, if such a proposal could be adopted, which would go a long way to making this unit an efficient force. I believe that by reorganising the Palestine Companies, the Arab and Jewish Companies of the Buffs into a Palestine Brigade or something of the kind, we would be able, without disturbing Arab sentiment in the Middle East, to create a force which would be a potent reinforcement to the defence of the Holy Land.

Mr. Lipson: I have one advantage over my hon. Friends who have addressed the House on the subject of a Jewish Army to-day in that they are not Jews and I am. I therefore hope to be able to put before the House this problem as I see it as a Jew and from the inside. I do not claim to speak on behalf

of others although I believe that a large number of Jews will find considerable agreement with what I have to say. All Jews will, I think, agree with my first statement which is one of gratitude to the hon. Members who have spoken for the sympathy they have shown towards the Jews. I fear, however, that from some of the remarks that have been made there may be some misconception. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) suggested a Jewish Army because apparently from the illustration that he gave it would then not be necessary for some of his constituents in Bilston to serve in the Armed Forces of the Crown. I would remind him, and the country ought to be reminded, that British Jews are liable to service and are playing their part, and that in all the countries in which they have the right to serve Jews, are serving. Indeed Jews above anybody else surely have a vital interest in this war. It is from that point of view alone that I approach the question of a Jewish Army. Will the establishment of a Jewish Army add to our war effort, will it make it easier or more difficult for us to win the war? Having answered that question I would add this: Is the proposal to establish a Jewish Army in the interests of Jews themselves?
With regard to the effect on the war effort, nobody is going to suggest that the British Government will not be willing to take soldiers from whatever source they can get them. British Jews, as I have said, are serving in the British Army. But nothing must be done by making proposals of the kind before us to embarrass in any way the British Government in any part of the world. We have before us today two different proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston seemed to advocate a Jewish Army to include Jews from all over the world. Other speakers were more limited in their proposals, which were for a Jewish Army for Palestine only. We are all agreed that Palestine must be adequately defended, but whether the best defence of Palestine is to establish a Jewish Army only the British Government, I submit, can decide, in the light of all the circumstances.
I want to draw attention to a point of view which has been expressed in the Debate to-day and which to my mind is harmful in its conception. Reference has been made continually to the Jewish people. I want to submit that the Jews


are a religious community, and I think it is right that that view should be stressed. The anti-Semites argue that the Jews are a separate people, and that is how they justify the discrimination which is exercised against them in various parts of the world. That argument is also supported by the views put forward by the Jewish Nationalists, who also talk about a Jewish people. You cannot have the best of both worlds. You cannot at the same time say "There is a Jewish people and therefore I am a member of the Jewish people, and I want to get all the advantages and privileges that that carries with it" and also to say "I am a British subject"—or a Frenchman or an American—"with equal rights with other citizens." Therefore, I feel that the Nationalists in their arguments are playing with fire, because they are proving the anti-Semitic case that the Jew is an alien in every country where he is. It is not true. In this country, thank God, we Jews enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens, and that is why we love this country, and we accept with the privileges of citizenship the responsibilities of citizenship. Jews here and, I would add, Jews everywhere want no additional argument about a Jewish Army to induce them to play their part in the fight against Hitler. They know that everything they stand for, the teaching of the Jewish prophets and everything they believe in, are threatened by the Nazi menace. If that is not a sufficient motive for them to put their all into the fight against Hitler no political argument of the advantage of a Jewish Army is likely to carry any weight.
I want to say a word about the Jewish Army from the point of view of Jews themselves, Jews less fortunate than those in Britain and who do not enjoy full rights of citizenship. It seems to me that there is a great opportunity in this war, when Jews and non-Jews fight together and share a common danger in the same units, for them to learn to understand each other better and break down the existing barriers. The only hope for Jews all the world over is that the same sort of tolerance and understanding which happily exists in these islands should extend to all countries, and I believe that fighting together and sharing a common danger are likely to advance that object. It certainly will not be by isolation, by forming separate

Jewish Armies. This is not a time when one wants to emphasise the difference between the Jew and the non-Jew. In this war we have a great common interest. It is for these reasons that, while I appreciate the generous motives which have prompted those who in this House to-day have advocated a Jewish Army, I, speaking as a Jew, cannot support the proposal. I believe that in the long view it will not help our war effort, and that must be the outstanding consideration, and I believe also in the long view it is not in the interests of Jews themselves.

Mr. Mander: I was very much interested in the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) with regard to the attitude of Jews, but I could not help feeling that it is one thing for Jews living in this country or in the United States or in some other civilised community to take up an attitude of that kind, and a very different one for the persecuted minorities in Germany and other European States, where they cannot have the same feelings towards the country in which they have been living as we have here.

Mr. Pickthorn: Has the hon. Member read, or, if he has not read, will he permit me to read, two sentences from a letter from a Polish Jew in this week's "New Statesman"?

Mr. Mander: There is very little time, and I do not think my hon. Friend can interpolate a speech, however interesting, in the middle of my remarks. I was saying that while no one wants to interfere with the position of Jews in this country, let us always remember that it is totally different from their position in other countries. In a consideration of this question we must start with a realisation of the fact that the Jews have been fighting this war since 1933—they have been in longer than we have. This is not the occasion for it, and I have no intention of going into the general policy of the Government with regard to Palestine, but I want to make this comment. I should have thought there was very little foundation in international law for the present policy of the White Paper, which presumably is that of the Government. We remember that it was rejected by a majority of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations just before the


war, and a meeting of the Council was to be held at which it was the intention of the British Government to ask that that decision should be overridden. The war took place and that meeting was never held, and therefore we are in the position of the policy having been rejected by the only organ of the League that considered it at all, and I should have thought it was very arguable whether our policy has any foundation in international law.
Something has been said about the Arabs always remaining in a majority in Palestine. I only say that I would not for a moment accept the view that under no circumstances, some of them unforeseeable at present, would that position be altered. We have heard something about the susceptibilities of the Jews and the Arabs, and we know that in different ways they both have very strong feelings, but I suggest that during the last 20 years we have not been particularly careful to carry out the task that was committed to us in Palestine. We have not given that fair play to the Jews under the Mandate which we should have done, and we must always remember now, in the terrible hour of difficulty which we and the Jews throughout the world are suffering, that we must do everything we can to make good to them now. I believe it would be a sound proposition and contribution to winning the war to make the fullest possible use of the splendid fighting material available in Palestine among the Jews. I desire to join in the appeal that has been so eloquently made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) to the Secretary of State for War to do everything he feels he fairly and reasonably can, having regard to all the difficulties of the situation that we know exist out there, to make the Jews in Palestine feel that this time we do want their help and that we will give them all the arms that we can spare and thereby increase the power at our disposal in Palestine and the spiritual support of our cause in the United States and throughout the whole world.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I would like to join with other Members in paying a tribute to the fighting qualities of the Jewish race. I was very impressed with the sincere and moving speech of the hon. Member for

Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) who told us how proud the Jews are to fight as British people. We ought to remember that. I should like to speak from the personal experience I had in the East End of London. The Jews behaved as well and as courageously as any other people and displayed a very amusing Cockney spirit in time of difficulty. I am connected with a charitable organisation which looks after some of the children who have been badly blitzed, getting them out of London and into homes in the country. We have many Jewish children and we have received generous contributions for their support from Jews in America.
Although I have prefaced my remarks with those words, I am not in favour of the creation of a Jewish Army, which I do not think would help to win the war. My main reason is that I think it would make settlement of the Jewish problem after the war much more difficult. I believe it would increase, especially in Palestine, the erroneous idea that Palestine alone can take the Jews who have been dispossessed in the war. I think there were 80,000 Jews in Palestine at the end of the last war, and that there are now 450,000. It has been calculated that after the war there will be 7,000,000 dispossessed Jews in Eastern Europe alone. It is obvious that those 7,000,000 cannot go to Palestine. The danger of creating a Jewish Army is also that it might support the idea in Palestine that the Jews there may become a separate State and would encourage many people in Eastern Europe to think that all their difficulties will be solved if they can go to Palestine. Palestine may not be able to take them.
We must settle the Jews properly after the war. They must be settled all over the world, as well as in Palestine. There is no doubt that Syria and other countries in that part of the world are not as thickly populated as Palestine, and probably many more Jews might be settled there, but if you create a Jewish Army you give rise to the fear among the Moslems that the Jews will he an armed and militant race among them, that we shall find it more difficult to get those countries to accept the Jews for settlement. For that reason, we must be very careful how we walk. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us in detail the position of the Jews in Palestine.

Mr. Riley: Is not the hon. and gallant Member overlooking the fact that the case which was put up this morning was not so much for a separate Jewish Army but for the inclusion in the Allied Army of the Jews in Palestine?

Sir D. Gunston: The proposal is for the setting up of a Jewish Army and not for the right of people in Palestine to join, since they can do so at the present time. I understand that the Jews in Palestine have joined many British units. I would ask the Secretary of State to give us the latest figures. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) did not mean to convey the impression, which I think was very unfair, about Jews not volunteering in Palestine. I believe that when the figures are given my hon. Friend will find that the Jews in Palestine have volunteered very well.
In response to an interruption, the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham gave an answer which will be very welcome when he said that he asked for a Jewish Army of about 20,000. That is a very different position altogether from the claim for a Jewish Army of 200,000. I think it would be possible to meet the natural feeling of the Jews—

Miss Rathbone: Was not the claim of the hon. and gallant Member for another 20,000? I do not think he was ignoring the fact that 14,500 Jews are already enlisted.

Sir D. Gunston: I thank the hon. Lady for that interruption. I meant to say another 20,000. The suggestion put forward in various quarters is that we could get together another 200,000, not only from Palestine but elsewhere.

Miss Rathbone: That was a general Jewish Army.

Sir D. Gunston: What I was going to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was this. Would it not be possible to raise separate battalions of Jews in Palestinian brigades? You could have a battalion of the Arabs and a battalion of the Jews in brigades, with the right, if they wished, to wear the Star of David. If he could do something on those lines I think it would very much help to meet Jewish national feeling.
I want to turn back for one moment to the idea of a great Jewish Army. As

my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, the Jews pride themselves on being full citizens of the country in which they live. To set up a great Jewish Army would run counter to the proudest boast of the Jewish race. I think there might have been a case for a Jewish Army before America came into the war. There might have been, and I believe there were, many American Jews willing to come over if a Jewish army could have been formed. But now that America is in the war, the American Jews will naturally fight as American citizens in the American Army, and so, from that point of view, I think the case for the formation of a Jewish Army has disappeared. There is also a very great administrative difficulty. Are the Jews to be taken out of their present units? It would mean an enormous amount of transport and an enormous amount of ships, and would be extremely difficult from the administrative point of view.
There is one final point, and that is the effect on Moslem opinion throughout the world. If only another 20,000 extra are to be got into the Army, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham suggested, would it be worth while if, in doing so, the whole, of Moslem opinion throughout the world were adversely affected? We all know how difficult the situation is in India at the moment, and we all know how well the Mohammedans are behaving there. I think it would be absolutely fatal to upset them at this moment by setting up a Jewish Army which they might think might be used to attack their Arab friends in that part of the world. I therefore believe that from the Jewish point of view, and from the point of view of settling the Jews in proper homes in places where they could live a decent life after the war, it would be disastrous, and I believe it would make the eventual creation of a Palestinian State quite impossible. I believe it would react disastrously on Jewry, and would prevent the amalgamation and friendship we all want to see.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I have always been an advocate of a Jewish Army. I served in Turkey both after and during the last war, and I remember realising the peril in which the Canal might stand in the event of an enemy attack in that direction. We succeeded in repulsing the


enemy, and from that moment I saw how important it was to have a body of reliable soldiers somewhere in Palestine to protect the Canal. I foresaw that a military monster would spring up in Central Europe and might march down and attack the Canal, and I asked why we did not have on the spot half a million Jews to defend it. We went to Poland to try and raise an Army of 200,000 there, and other friends helped in America, and to cut a long story short, a few years ago it would have been possible to get 500,000 Jews, adequately armed, in Palestine. That was the position then. Why was an army agreed to by the Government and why was that privilege withdrawn? That is the most serious point because all the speeches we have heard against a Jewish Army would fall to the ground if it were publicly known that a Jewish Army was granted by the Government, and I would like to know who stopped it: We ought to know, for all the facts were published in America both as to the size of the army and the name of the officer who was to take command.
The Canal is in danger. Do you not want to defend it? What will the War Office, which is full of intellectual eunuchs, think if the day comes when the Canal is attacked and there are not half a million local levies to help defend it? I wish they could be asked their opinion. It is not too late to raise an army, even though it cannot be half a million. The Colonial Office is equally anti-Semitic in its outlook in this connection. What is to be our policy in the Far East? Is it to go on being a policy of so-called appeasement? We had enough appeasement, currying favour with crooks like Hitler in the past; why not stop appeasement and have courage to back our own considered opinions? The policy of appeasement has not gained at Munich or anywhere else, and I would ask the Government to stop taking their marching orders from Gandhi or the Mufti or anybody else, and to do their duty, and support the Jews in having an army of their own, even if that army does not serve in Palestine. I am in favour of a Jewish Army for these further reasons. The Jews in Palestine have never cut the pipe-line, they have never murdered an Englishman and they produced the greatest general in the last war, General Monash, and Cohen, the wounded M.P.,

and legless Bader The only Member of Parliament who won the V.C. in the last war was a Jew, and Disraeli, who sat on that Bench, Disraeli, that Hebrew dreamer, got us the Canal, and Cyprus to defend it. If he were inspiring us today, he would favour a Jewish Army.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I think he is making a mistake there, and is giving Disraeli more credit than is his due. I give him all credit for the Suez Canal, but it was Gladstone who got us Cyprus and who sent soldiers there to defend it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I gladly acknowledge the part played by Mr. Gladstone, but Disraeli was in favour of a Jewish Army. That is the point. I am also in favour of a Jewish Army for these reasons. Because the greatest men in the world want it. Our Prime Minister wants it, the President of the United States wants it, and lastly, the greatest man of action in the British Empire after the Prime Minister, Field-Marshal Smuts, wants it. Finally, I am in favour of a Jewish Army because Hitler does not want one. Arm your friends, because your friends are the friends of freedom.

Wing-Commander James: It will be conceded that the outstanding speech in this Debate so far has come from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I think it will be generally agreed that if all Jewry had his standpoint and qualities there would be no such thing as anti-Semitism in the world. Unfortunately this issue is really promoted by the extreme Zionist organisations, and nobody can doubt that who has looked at the Jewish Press during the last few weeks. For example, take the "Jewish Standard," the issue of which of 17th July was sent to me a few days ago. I will quote only the headlines to the House. The main heading is, "Attempt to sabotage Jewish Army Plan," and "Ominous change of Committee's title." The cross-headlines in this extreme Zionist organ are "New names," "Political treachery," and "Enemies of unity." I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), who, with such complete sincerity and so amusingly, raised this issue, was unconscious that he was merely acting on the inspiration of these extreme Zionist organisations, and on the Zionist


philosophy, which, in fact, has contributed so largely to creating anti-Semitism in the world to-day. Had this issue been argued logically—and I notice that both the hon. Member for Boston and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) really spoke pretty far from the point—it would have been quite evident that this is really an attack on the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. It is an attempt to force the hand of the Government and to secure a reversal of the policy of the White Paper adopted and decided by the overwhelming Vote of this House so shortly before the war. In short, the whole movement for a Jewish Army is really an attempt to stake an exclusive claim for Palestine.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1942.
2. War Damage (Amendment) Act, 1942.
3. Allied Powers (War Service) Act, 1942.
4. National Service (Foreign Countries) Act, 1942.
5. United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942.
6. Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1942.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Poole) Act, 1942.
8. Bilston Corporation Act, 1942.
9. Coventry Corporation Act, 1942.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Loans (Postponement of Repayment) Measure, 1942.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

JEWS (FIGHTING SERVICES).

Wing-Commander James: Before the summons to another place, I had observed that the full Zionist case was to stake a claim upon Palestine for the post-war period. It is made quite plain to anybody who takes the trouble to read the current Jewish Press that they are trading

upon the appalling sufferings of the Jews in Europe to press this very, specific demand. It is most important to distinguish clearly between the old-established British Jews, those who have been here for generations and who form a most valuable element in our national life, and the Zionist Jews, who for the most part are those Jewish elements which came to this country in the 1880's and later from the pogroms in Poland, then under the Russian Government. This difference between the old-established British Jews and the Zionist Jews is clearly shown by the extreme virulence of the attacks upon the former in the Jewish Press in connection with demands for what amounts to a freehold of Palestine after this war. The Jewish demand, in my submission, raises the fundamental issue facing world Jewry, an issue which has to be faced, and probably can only be solved, in the immediate post-war period—the decision between nationalism and assimilation. On that, the Jews alone have to make up their minds. They cannot go on trying to have it both ways, to have the benefit of citizenship of countries and an overriding external nationalism.
If they decide to go for nationalism, the Jews must face the fact that Palestine cannot possibly offer a solution. Even if you gave it to the Jews, it could not solve their problems. The numbers involved make that obvious. A Jewish speaker, Professor Brodetsky, has said recently that there were in Europe 9,500,000 Jews, largely oppressed and almost entirely dispossessed, who after the war would need homes. Another Jewish speaker—I have the quotation here—recently gave the number as 8,000,000. It is obvious that this problem cannot be solved by Palestine. These people, for the most part, are dispossessed, and horribly oppressed. It is certain that in the post-war settlement of Europe the anti-Semitic feeling which is prevalent in most of South-East Europe—to which, for example, Mr. Harold Butler referred in his recent book "The Lost Peace"—will preclude, or will make extremely difficult, the resettlement of the dispossessed Jews. I do not think they can be re-absorbed. I believe the logical outcome of the Zionist attitude must be the creation under the Peace Treaties of a specifically Jewish State in South-East Europe which Jews can have as their homeland, seeing that Palestine


cannot possibly take them. The Jewish claim on Palestine is only a sentimental one—sentiment, of course, is a powerful factor, but, neither historically nor ethnologically, have the Jews in reality as much claim to the soil of Palestine as the Arabs have.
We, as a democratic people, fighting for freedom, have no right whatever to seek to impose a Jewish minority, aiming openly at majority, brought in from the outside, on a native, indigenous Arab majority. We have no right whatever to do so. It is rather significant to notice the extremely ruthless, realistic attitude to the Jewish problem as usual adopted by the U.S.S.R. In Russia while Jews are, I understand, given complete equality in other respects, any separatist or Zionist tendencies are ruthlessly repressed, and to that the Jewish Press in this country makes constant and bitter reference. Russia at least is apparently going to solve the problem of Jewish nationalism in its own way. Both the opening speaker, the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) referred to the interest taken in this problem by the United States of America. In nearly all the discussions in the Jewish Press on this matter something very much like a veiled threat is made and it is constantly asserted that the United States interest in this matter is so vital and means so much, that our relations with the United States largely depends upon our handling of the matter of Zionist aspirations in Palestine to-day. As the extreme Zionists demand its handling, of course.

Mr. Hannah: I would like to repudiate that.

Wing-Commander James: I apologise. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham certainly so represented it, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson). I do not know whether this is true or not. I have not been to America for a long time. If it were the case, provided that it meant that the United States of America are prepared to share with us the burden and the responsibility, and I must say also the ingratitude and the odium to which we are exposed, and have been exposed for years past in endeavouring to be fair and generous to the Jews,

then I should welcome that interest. We have had all too little thanks for the immense amount which the British Government have done for the Jews. Lastly, I would like to ask how many British and American Jews who support in writing and by subscription a demand for a Jewish Palestine themselves want to go and settle in Palestine. It would be far more convincing if that were the case.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman really consistent? He has first told us how many millions of Jews will not be able to settle in Europe and will want to go to Palestine and that now Jews do not want to go and settle in Palestine. Is it not a very good thing to leave room for those who cannot find any home in the countries in which they were born?

Wing-Commander James: I am afraid I have failed to make myself clear to the hon. Lady. I referred to the depressed 9,500,000 Jews in South-Eastern Europe and argued that Palestine would never be able to hold them. I referred quite separately to the American interests and to British Zionists and asked how many of these people were themselves able to settle in Palestine, and I do not think that there was any inconsistency. The policy of His Majesty's Government to the Jews over a period of years has been generous in the extreme. I instance the treatment of refugees, the grants of large sums of money. Jewish affairs have occupied an enormous amount of our time in Parliament, and anybody can check this for themselves. I look at the index of the last pre-war published volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT and observe that the affairs of Palestine occupied six columns of our time and the affairs of India three and a half. That is the measure of the interest and sympathy this House has taken in Jewish affairs in normal peacetime.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I have noticed in the Debate to-day a certain confusion because a number of hon. Members mean different things when they are talking about a Jewish Army. There have in fact been before the House to-day, not always clearly defined, three different projects. The first is that of a world-wide Jewish Army not confined to recruitment in Palestine, but recruited from Jews all over the world. Then there is another project, which is for a self-contained


Jewish force of all arms within the British Army, and then there is the much narrower project of a Palestine Regiment recruited from Jews in Palestine. It has not always been quite clear which of those three projects hon. Members favoured. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), who initiated this discussion, was, I think, in favour of the first, though even that was a little difficult to discover. He ranged very widely in time and space and in subject.

Mr. Hannah: Was it not wise to leave it a little vague?

Sir J. Grigg: He ranged in space from New York and then by a natural and easy transition through the Jerusalem Chamber to the Jewish Home in Palestine, and in space and in time he ranged from Vespasian to the brave new world which is going to exist after the war, and his range in subject was very much wider still. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) mentioned some of them. The one which interested me most was a certain arithmetical calculation which followed his reference to the fact that the Semitic race in Bagdad had invented algebra. When I was listening to the arithmetical calculations of the hon. and gallant Member, I realised how far mathematics had moved since 30 years ago, when I used to be taught them at Cambridge. But I gathered from the figures mentioned in his arithmetical calculations that what he wanted was a world-wide Jewish Army without any doubt. Then we had the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham, and I was not certain what he wanted, though it was clear that his main consideration was to enable the Jews to defend themselves in Palestine at the present moment. I must say that I take it to be a bit hard that he of all persons should complain that the Poles have been put ahead of the Jews in arms priority.

Colonel Cazalet: I did not complain. I said that what we can do for the Poles we can do for the Jews too.

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend might reflect that when there is priority one must be before the other. Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the Debate rather in two compartments. The first is that of the Jewish Army and the second that of the ability of the Jews or the desire of the Jews to defend them-

selves in Palestine. As regards the project of a specifically Jewish Army, whether it takes the form of a world-wide Army or a self-contained Jewish force of all arms inside the British Army, it has been pointed out that the Government have already decided this question, and that they decided against this project, and Parliament has been informed of the reason on more than one occasion. As the House is aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) pointed out in a very moving speech, Jews of British nationality are liable for service in the British Forces, and are able to volunteer for service in the British Army, just as other British subjects. This is an obligation which they have carried out very fully and faithfully, and every honour is due to them and to their desire to do this. I assume that a similar liability to serve, and corresponding freedom to volunteer, exist for Jews of United States nationality in relation to the United States Forces. There is another thing which ought to be mentioned, and it is that Jews of alien nationality have very abundant opportunities for service in the British Army, as volunteers.
Now perhaps I may move to the Middle East. So far as Palestine is concerned, I told the House on 7th July that there are over 10,000 Palestinian Jews serving in units in the British Army in the Middle East, and if you take the Air and other Forces, I daresay the number will come up to the 14,000 which, I think, was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston). There are also nearly 24,000 in various police formations which perform functions, some whole-time, more analogous to the constabulary in Ireland, and some part-time, who perform functions analogous to those of the Home Guard in this country. Also, Palestinian women are recruited in the Middle East for service corresponding to that of the Auxiliary Territorial Service. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham gave the figure as 1,500. I have not the figure by me, and I have no reason, therefore, to challenge it. Although The decision against the formation of a Jewish Army stands, there is no doubt that the Jews have abundant opportunities of taking part in the struggle against the arch-persecutor of their race, but that does not dispose of the question, because, as


many Members have pointed out to-day, there is a second question, namely, the desire of the Jews in Palestine to be in a position to defend Palestine against possible attack by Axis forces, and, quite obviously, this question has assumed greatly added importance in view of the natural anxiety created by Rommel's advance into Egypt.
The House will remember that on 7th July I answered a Question and said that the Colonial Secretary had telegraphed to the High Commissioner for Palestine urging acceleration of the arming and training of all police formations in Palestine and the immediate expansion of part-time police. Since then we have been in communication with the High Commissioner for Palestine and the Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East, and as a result I am able to make an announcement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government. The Government have recently had under review the adequacy of the existing arrangements for affording all sections of the community in Palestine the opportunity they desire to defend their country against a possible attack by the Axis forces. They have come to the conclusion that the following further measures to strengthen the defences of the country should now be adopted. Firstly, a Palestine Regiment of the British Army will be created at once, consisting of separate Jewish and Arab infantry battalions for general service in the Middle East. Normally, the Regiment will be employed in Palestine or adjacent countries for the defence of Palestine. The existing Palestinian companies of the Buffs will be incorporated into the regiment, and it is hoped to obtain at least 10,000 additional recruits for it.

Colonel Cazalet: Will there have to be equal numbers? Suppose 8,000 Jews and only 2,000 Arabs volunteer?

Earl Winterton: Let the Minister get on.

Sir J. Grigg: There will be no insistence on strict numerical parity.

Miss Rathbone: Will they be mixed?

Sir J. Grigg: I have already said that they will be separate battalions. Secondly, the Palestine Volunteer Force—[Interruption.]

Commander Locker-Lampson: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) is always interrupting most offensively; his interruptions to-day are those of a full-time Fascist.

Sir J. Grigg: Secondly, the Palestine Volunteer Force, recruitment for which is open to all sections of the community, will be expanded to a maximum of 2,000 as arms, equipment and training facilities can be made available. Thirdly, the establishment of the Jewish Rural Special Police will be completed by the enrolment of 1,500 additional recruits, requisite training staff and co-ordination officers, arms and equipment to be provided by the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, as soon as circumstances permit. Fourthly, in addition, the training and equipment of existing units will be continued as rapidly as possible.
I think the House will agree, whatever may be felt about the aspect of a specifically Jewish Army—and the Debate today indicates quite clearly that, to put it mildly, there is a great cleavage of opinion on that point—His Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to enable Palestinian Jews to defend their country against the universal enemy. I go further and say that if the facilities now offered are taken advantage of there will be only a very small part of the man-power available in Palestine which is not being employed to good advantage against the common foe. One final word. One Member to-day referred to the possibility of the Jews and Arabs uniting in defence of their common country. Surely the facilities now offered whereby they can unite as battalions of a single Palestine Regiment is the best assurance that this may ultimately happen.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (INQUIRY).

Miss Ward: I feel I should preface my remarks with an expression of regret that I have to delay my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War immediately after such a long Debate. I would like to make one or two very brief general observations before I come to argue my main thesis. I fully appreciate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, that all of us who have any responsibility for prisoners of war wish to make the


best possible contribution we can to their welfare and safety and that we also want to keep helpful contacts with their relatives in this country. Therefore, I regret all the more that I find myself in some conflict with my right hon. Friend to-day. I also want to make it perfectly clear that I am not raising this issue as a personal matter at all. I have no connection either with the British Red Cross or with the Prisoners of War Organisation or with Mr. Stanley Adams, who was managing director I undertook to raise the original Adjournment Question on Mr. Adams' resignation on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). I would, however, like to place it on record—because I think it would be appreciated by many thousands of prisoners and their relatives—my praise of the work Mr. Adams did during the time he was at the Prisoners of War Organisation.
My reason for raising this question to-day is on a matter of general principle. I believe that my right hon. Friend, either through inadvertence, lack of co-ordination between Ministers or lack of cooperation between Ministers, has contravened the traditional relationships existing between the Executive and Parliament. I cannot view with equanimity a possible future repetition of such a contravention. Therefore, I felt that I must raise the issue in order to give my right hon. Friend and other Ministers associated with him an opportunity of explaining to the House the exact position, because I am completely in the dark as to what happened about the inquiry promised by the Lord Privy Seal. I come now to my story. I had undertaken, on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe, to raise on the Adjournment the question of Mr. Adams' resignation, as there had been a great deal of public anxiety expressed when his resignation was announced. The Adjournment was set for a special day. The day before I received a manuscript letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in these terms:

"Dear Miss Ward,

I am most anxious for the sake of the relatives of the prisoners of war to avoid any more public discussion of the British Red Cross Society difficulty. If it is discussed on the Adjournment it will only lead to violently partisan statements on the two sides and we shall be no further forward. I have therefore approached the War Office and the British Red

Cross Society and offered to hold a private inquiry myself at once into the matter and to report to the Secretary of State for War my findings. They have both accepted this proposal subject to the supporters of Mr. Adams' case doing the same. If therefore (a) you will not raise the matter on the Adjournment at any rate till after the inquiry and report, and (b) you will get other supporters to leave the matter quiet (so far as you are able), I will undertake the inquiry at once. I hope you will agree that this is a sensible solution.

Yours sincerely,

Stafford Cripps."

I contacted Mr. Adams, who very readily agreed to co-operate in the inquiry, and I subsequently saw the Lord Privy Seal and asked for certain safeguards. The Lord Privy Seal assured me that he had arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that if there was any difficulty about the findings, he had reserved to himself the right to raise the matter with the War Cabinet. I also raised—and this is important—the question of a statement to the House, because I felt that the relatives of the prisoners of war were entitled to be told that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal was undertaking this inquiry. The Lord Privy Seal said, "I was afraid you would ask for that." I said, "I think it is the only right and proper course to take; may I have a Private Notice Question to-morrow?" He agreed. I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to bear that in mind. Subsequently, on 5th March, which was the day on which the announcement had been made in the House and the date of the original Adjournment on which I was to have raised the matter, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Mr. Adams in the following terms:

"Dear Mr. Adams,

As you know, I have agreed, in view of the anxiety that may have been raised in the minds of some relatives of prisoners about the effect of recent changes in the management of the Prisoners of War Department of the British Red Cross Society, to look into the matter personally and advise the Secretary of State for War of my opinion upon it. I have decided that the most convenient way of conducting this inquiry will be that the two parties to the controversy, that is to say, yourself and the British Red Cross Society, should each prepare a statement; that these should be exchanged through me; and that I should then go into the whole matter personally with the two parties. I shall be pleased when we all meet to hear anything further that you or your witnesses care to say and to give both parties an opportunity of asking each other questions. This is not, in my view, and I am sure you will agree, a matter for legal representation."

The remainder of the letter is merely formal, and sets out the date of the inquiry, and so on. To this letter Mr. Adams replied, on 6th March:

"Thank you for your letter of 5th March. I fear there is a misunderstanding as to my position. I have no controversy with the British Red Cross Society. I have resigned and my resignation has been accepted, and I do not wish to ventilate any grievance. In fact I have none, and have no desire to extend the field of controversy. The British Red Cross Society at the suggestion of the War Office invited my assistance. I gave it. The British Red Cross later left me in no doubt that my services as Managing Director were regarded as superfluous. I resigned. I see in this no ground for recrimination. If the matter has assumed public importance it is only as a result of the action of the Prisoners of War Relatives Association and Next-of-Kin who may perhaps be regarded as a party to the controversy, which I am not. As you wish to have a statement from me, I am preparing one dealing with my activities for prisoners of war during my tenure of office, and I hope this will be available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Stanley Adams."

The point I want to emphasise is that Mr. Adams did not wish any public controversy. He agreed to the Lord Privy Seal's suggestion at my request and because he felt that, as he had been asked, it would only be friendly to do so to give his co-operation. When I saw the Lord Privy Seal, I asked whether he and the Prisoners of War Relatives Association might put in their memoranda dealing with the aspects of the case which they knew. The Lord Privy Seal replied that he was not going to extend the inquiry outside the British Red Cross Society and Mr. Adams, and that he would canalise any information which was relevant to the inquiry through the British Red Cross Society and Mr. Adams. I emphasise that because I want to make it plain to the House that there was no doubt in the minds of all of us as to what the inquiry was about. I shall not go into the merits of the case, which is past and done with; it is no good going back over past history; but it is relevant to the point I am trying to make that it was very well known what the subject of the inquiry was, and that everyone connected with it was expecting that when a statement was made as to the results of the findings, it would be made on the basis of the terms of reference agreed between the Lord Privy Seal and myself, namely, Mr. Adams' resignation. My complaint, if I may so put it, in a

friendly way, to my right hon. Friend, is that when the announcement was made in the House, the terms of reference were altered, and that subsequently, I understand—and I have had to wait a very long time before being able to raise this issue in the House—although the inquiry, which was subsequently held by the Paymaster-General, was very intricate, very detailed, and lasted over a very long period, in fact no written report was presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, because he would not accept one, and that in fact the draft report which was handed in by the Paymaster-General presumably went into the waste-paper basket, and probably no one outside official circles has any idea what in fact were the terms of the original findings by the Paymaster-General.

I want to be absolutely fair. I wonder whether the Treasury Bench realise how very difficult it is for a Back Bench Member, who has no information available except what it has been possible to find out over a period of months, to be perfectly fair and balanced in criticism. I do not want to make any unfair statements against any Minister. I want only to get the truth, which I have been prevented from getting. When I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, he made it perfectly plain to me that he had never seen the original correspondence. I ought to explain to the House that the Lord Privy Seal had to leave for India, and that he asked the Paymaster-General to undertake the inquiry, which the Paymaster-General did. I have no complaint to make about the way in which he conducted the inquiry, although he did slightly alter the method of carrying it out; but he went into the subject on the basis of the terms of reference originally agreed between the Lord Privy Seal and myself. I repeat that when I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, he made it perfectly clear to me that he had not seen the original correspondence, and, of course, I blame myself, when the Lord Privy Seal left for India, for not having forwarded a copy of my manuscript letter to the Secretary of State for War and to the Paymaster-General, but, obviously, it could not have occurred to me that the terms of reference had not been properly agreed to as between the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for War and the Paymaster-General. When I saw my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, he stated that certain terms of reference which he had agreed had been announced in the House, and these I must read. The statement was, of course, made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. It reads:
With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement. In view of the anxiety that may have been raised in the minds of some relatives of prisoners about the effect of recent changes in the management of the Prisoners of War Department of the British Red Cross Society, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has consented upon the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to look into the matter personally and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of his opinion upon it. This course has the full approval of the British Red Cross Society."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1942; col. 806, Vol. 378.]
Why it should not have had the approval of myself, as representing Mr. Stanley Adams, I really do not know. My right hon. Friend says that he agreed to these terms of reference, which were different from the terms of reference agreed to between the Lord Privy Seal and myself. In my original manuscript letter the Lord Privy Seal made it perfectly clear that he had made the approach to the Secretary of State for War, but in the statement made in the House by the Financial Secretary it is perfectly clear that the approach came from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; it is quite a puzzle to me to say in this matter who is Wellington and who is Blücher. It is outside my province.

I must tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War why I let that particular announcement pass; I shall never do it again, because it does not pay to be co-operative and helpful, believe me. When I saw the Lord Privy Seal and asked for a statement to be made in the House that he was going to undertake the inquiry, he said his difficulty was that he did not want to be regarded as an arbitrator available to Government Departments when a dispute occurred. I quite understand his position. Therefore, when these terms of reference were announced in the House, and it was pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War made the approach to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I very naturally assumed that that was a protection for the Lord Privy Seal. As I

have said, I do not know what the answer is. It is quite clear to me, from the letter which the Lord Privy Seal wrote to me and from the statement which he subsequently embodied in a letter to Mr. Adams, that he had very generously—I know the relatives of prisoners of war were profoundly grateful to him—undertaken to carry out this inquiry, and that when the statement on the inquiry was made in the House, the original terms of reference had been changed. I cannot, without going into the merits of the case, argue that point, but I do say that the only way to settle what were the agreed terms of reference is to find out the interpretation put upon them by the interested parties—the British Red Cross Society and Mr. Adams. This can only be done by publishing the original memoranda prepared by both sides. I have seen both memoranda, and I know that I am putting forward a perfectly sound case. That is the only way to solve this muddle; I call it a muddle, although I am prepared to believe that it arose out of a genuine misunderstanding. The only way to straighten it out is to publish the original documents in a White Paper, or send the papers to a High Court Judge.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War must bear in mind that when the Paymaster-General widened the scope of the inquiry, he saw witnesses, not with Mr. Adams but on their own. A large number of relatives really know what the Paymaster-General inquired into, and what was said to them at the inquiry, and, therefore the House will realise that they were surprised, in fact, were staggered, when he announced the findings which had no relationship to matters on which they had given evidence. If you are to carry out an inquiry on the future organisation of the British Red Cross Society, or on the appointment of a successor to Mr. Adams, it would be inappropriate to send for Mr. Adams and ask him to give the Paymaster-General, and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, his opinion as to whether his successor is sufficiently well equipped to care for the future welfare of the prisoners. It would be highly improper. That is why I say that I am quite certain about my original terms of reference. You might as well ask the late Secretary of State for War to submit a memorandum to the Prime Minister as to whether he thinks my right hon. Friend will make a


better or worse Secretary of State for War than himself. The whole thing is absolutely wrong.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that the whole thing was a genuine muddle, but I wish members of the Treasury Bench—I do not want to lecture them—if there was a difficulty, had come to me or to Mr. Adams and asked us what they were to do about it, and, to use what has become a favourite phrase in the War Office, "come clean in the matter," because they would have found us very ready to co-operate. Although I know I can sometimes be extraordinarily tiresome—I should not mind on certain occasions if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War tore me limb from limb, because I would deserve it—over this I am as innocent as a babe unborn, and yet not one Minister has said a word of regret to me. I asked a man who had nothing to do with our Parliamentary machine to co-operate for the benefit of the Government in an inquiry; I told him it was perfectly all right, and this is what happens—the terms of reference are altered and no one even says to me, "We regret there has been a muddle."

I want to go one step further. I want to be perfectly frank with the House. It it very difficult to obtain one's evidence, because Members of the Front Bench are like closed oysters when they get together to try and whitewash themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW does the oyster get out"?] The oyster nearly came out, but changed its mind and went back again. I have to throw myself on the good will of the House. I am trying to get to the bottom of a very real difficulty. I understand that when the Paymaster-General had concluded his evidence, he prepared a draft report—my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal used the phrase "to report my findings." I understand that in legal parlance when you report findings, you report them in a legal manner, and it is incredible on a matter of this kind that there is no written record of the inquiry available at the War Office. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has not read the evidence, although he may have done so when he knew I was going to raise the matter to-day. I understand that the Paymaster-General prepared a draft

report, which was circulated to the British Red Cross Society and to Mr. Adams. I have not seen a copy of it.

Naturally the relatives, whom we are all anxious to do everything we can to help, have been very perturbed about the whole question. I think the right hon. Gentleman has had a copy of the resolution passed by the Council of the British Prisoners of War Relatives Association. This is a very powerful body. It has branches all over the country, and the ordinary rank and file of relatives belong to it. They passed this resolution on 22nd July:
This Association urges the Government to take action for the better safeguarding of the interests and welfare of British prisoners of war by setting up an inter-departmental committee under the Foreign Office similar to the one set up in the last war, having a Minister as chairman and an independent umpire, with power to overrule dissentient departments. It also urges that the business control of the British Red Cross Prisoners of War Department should be vested in the hands of one man having practical knowledge of and experience in dealing with European traffic problems and that, whilst appreciating and admiring the excellent work of the British Red Cross, the Association affirms its agreement with the view expressed by Sir William Jowitt that the existing officers of the Department (Prisoners of War Department of the British Red Cross) have not the necessary flexibility and reserve of strength to enable it to surmount future difficulties which might arise and holds that the extension of the war and the large increase in the number of British prisoners of war make it imperative that the Government take more responsibility for their welfare.
Greater co-ordination between Government Departments is certainly necessary. I discovered during my investigations that in the period when the Ministry of Food was negotiating with America for a change-over from the supply of food parcels from America to our prisoners, before America came into the war, which would have been a saving to us, the Ministry of Food, which had taken the initiative, never filed their information with the War Office, which is the Department that answers for prisoners of war. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the work of the Post Office in connection with the despatch of parcels, because I understand from all sides that they have done their work admirably. I understand that they do not file the War Office records of their work. It seems to me that there is some lack of co-ordination between the Government Departments which are also concerned in Prisoners of


War matters and the War Office which is unbusinesslike.

The past is over. I have no wish, neither has anyone else with whom I am connected, to resurrect it. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for strength and ruthlessness, two qualities which are very good in a Minister of the Crown. I think he ought to add another quality, which I have no doubt he also possesses, even if he does not exercise it, and that is judgment. I say in all sincerity, as a friend and not as a critic, that we ought to forget all the unfortunate happenings that have occurred. The right hon. Gentleman can do that so easily if he would agree to the setting-up of this inter-departmental committee, which would give confidence to many people who have been bewildered, as I have been bewildered, by these unsatisfactory happenings. I ask him to be a practical man. He has dealt with me, and he will probably deal with me now, very effectively, but I do not blame him. I do not mind how hard he hits, but let us after to-day forget this controversy and re-establish confidence. The country knows the contribution that the Red Cross has made. We do wish to re-establish confidence in the handling of this question by the House of Commons. I believe that the only way we can get it is to give the relatives what they want, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce that he agrees to the setting-up of that inter-departmental committee.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: I should like to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the bulldog tenacity with which she has held on to this question. I first gave notice to raise the question of the resignation of Mr. Stanley Adams on 24th February, but for private reasons I had to hand the matter over to my hon. Friend, and I am convinced, from what we have just heard, that I could not have put the matter into better hands. She has carried on a real fight against the whole influence of the Treasury Bench with true feminine determination.
I should like to say a word or two about how Mr. Adams came to be appointed. I do not think its greatest admirer could say, in 1940, that all was well with the Red Cross. There were very great difficulties. The situation was very different from that in the last war.

There was a great number of prisoners and there was no common frontier with the enemy. The fact remains that until, I believe, November, 1940, the Red Cross did not send anyone to Lisbon to find out how parcels sent there had been getting through to Geneva to be distributed to the prisoners. I believe that no fewer than 400,000 parcels were stolen or disappeared. There came a demand from the relatives of prisoners for a change. The first idea that a man with a business experience and European contacts should be appointed to the Prisoners of War Department came from the mother of a prisoner, who wrote to the then chairman of the Prisoners of War Department on 3rd October, 1940. However, things moved slowly and nothing happened till, I think, February, 1941. Then, by a stroke of genius, perhaps from the chairman of the Red Cross, but I am inclined to think from the War Office, Mr. Adams was appointed managing director of the Prisoners of War Parcels Department of the Red Cross.
He was admirably suited to this work, I saw him constantly in the year in which he was working, because, rightly or wrongly, many relatives of prisoners of war have written to me that the prisoners were not getting their parcels, and instead of asking Questions in the House, I often wrote to Mr. Adams. I invariably got a prompt reply which went into all the details and difficulties and the hopes there were for an improvement. I will not say how often I saw him, but I always found him with all the facts at his command. I was horrified in February, 1942, to learn from a private letter that he was tendering his resignation. I immediately went to St. James's Palace and asked to see him. He refused to reconsider his resignation, because his position had been made impossible. He had hoped to have complete control of the Prisoners of War Parcels Department, and it had not been given to him. Immediately after his appointment as managing director, the then chairman, Lord Clarendon, was moved to another position, and I thought the obvious thing would have been for Mr. Stanley Adams to have been made chairman of the Prisoners of War Parcels Department and given complete control as he was the foremost business man in the whole organisation. Instead, a distinguished general was brought in as chairman. The position of chairman was


absolutely redundant, and Mr. Adams, too, considered that to be so. That worked for a time, and Mr. Adams held on until he was finally forced to retire.
Then this inquiry came. The Lord Privy Seal volunteered to conduct it, but he was sent to India, and he handed it over to the Paymaster-General. We do not know what his report was. Apparently, it was a verbal report given to the Secretary of State for War. Whether that report was discussed with the chairman of the Red Cross or even with Mr. Stanley Adams, I do not know. On 16th March the Secretary of State for War made a statement to the House of Commons which I can only characterise as churlish. It did not contain a single word of reference to the splendid work which Mr. Adams had given for 12 months. He is a man whose business experience is worth thousands a year in the City; he had given his time and his all for nothing and he was forced, to retire. He says that he does not want this question brought up again, but it is our duty, on behalf of the prisoners of war, to bring the question forward so that we can get some real reply from the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Keeling: I rise because I am a member—I think the only one in this House—of the Red Cross Committee for Prisoners of War. Perhaps I may also mention that I was a prisoner of war for 15 months in the last war and learned something about prisoners' needs. I got back to this country a year before the Armistice, and then had a good deal to do with ministering to those needs. I do not propose to deal with the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) about the way the Paymaster-General's inquiry was handled. I propose instead to deal with the resolution, which she read, of the Prisoners of War Relatives Association. They urge that the interest of prisoners of war would best be safeguarded by an inter-departmental committee under the Foreign Office such as existed in the last war. I saw something of that administration in the last war, and I thought it was anything but ideal. I well remember that the head of that organisation, Lord Newton, suggested in another place that you could not expect the War Office to take any enthusiastic interest in prisoners of war any more than butchers took an interest

in meatless days. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not take an interest in prisoners of war, but nobody is more helpless than a prisoner, and I believe that his needs are far better handled by a flexible and sympathetic organisation like the Red Cross than by the War Office or by an inter-departmental committee such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend suggests.
There is another important reason for not weakening the Red Cross control. The British Red Cross depends on the International Red Cross for getting its parcels all the way from Lisbon to the prisoners' camps, and it depends on the International Red Cross in a hundred other ways. The International Red Cross will not listen to the British Government; they will only listen to the British Red Cross, and the more the British Red Cross control is reduced the more the authority of the Red Cross emblem is weakened. I agree that it is no good the British Red Cross being sympathetic if it is not efficient, but the Paymaster-General in his report found definitely that the Red Cross administration was efficient. That finding is omitted from the resolution of the Prisoners of War Relatives Association. I, myself, who have been at close quarters with the Red Cross administration, am strongly of opinion that it is efficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend has also advocated, as do the Prisoners of War Relatives Association, that the business control of the Red Cross should be in the hands of somebody with experience of European traffic. Those words are presumably intended to refer to Mr. Adams, and he is no longer available.

Miss Ward: My hon. Friend is putting an entirely different interpretation on what was intended because in the evidence put forward by the Prisoners of War Relatives Association to the inquiry they suggest the name of Sir William Currie. None of the evidence put to the inquiry asked for the reinstatement of Mr. Adams because Mr. Adams did not want to be involved at all. If Sir William Currie was appointed as director in an executive capacity, the association would get what they wanted.

Mr. Keeling: I have hardly any knowledge of Mr. Adams because he suppressed the committee of which I was


a member, both before and after his régime, so I never met him. Sir William Currie is now in the Red Cross-organisation in an advisory capacity. The executive head of the parcels organisation is now Mr. Eddy, who has a life-long experience of railway traffic in this country and abroad. It is true that it does not extend to the Continent, but the conditions under which parcels are forwarded now have no relation to prewar continental traffic.
I suggest that the present agitation against the Red Cross is harmful. It undermines the confidence of the relatives and causes anxiety. It is also likely to dam the flow of funds into the Red Cross and therefore to injure the interests of the prisoners themselves. If the agitation were well-founded that would not matter but, as I have said, my experience is that the administration is good and the agitation is not well-founded. I do not doubt the bona fides of those who are conducting this agitation but I think it is based on wrong information. For that I think the Red Cross are partly responsible. They have been rather inclined to hide their light under a bushel. I make the practical suggestion that after the Recess the Red Cross should be invited to submit their administration to the informal examination of an all-party meeting upstairs. I think that would do a good deal to reassure hon. Members of this House, and through them, to reassure the relatives of prisoners.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): It is only with the leave of the House that I can speak again. I realise that the War Office has occupied an undue amount of the time of to-day's Sitting, and I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible, and in any case considerably briefer than I had intended. It is quite obvious that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has, for some time, cherished a great grievance, and her grievance is that the inquiry conducted by the Paymaster-General was not what she thought it was going to be. Perhaps the House will allow me to explain the circumstances which led up to this inquiry: I will cut down the narrative as much as I possibly can. The House will remember that on 17th February my predecessor stated that he had received information from the chairman of the War Organisation of the Red Cross Society which foreboded some diminution

in the delivery of parcels to our prisoners of war in prison camps in Germany and Italy. This diminution was due to the steady dwindling during the preceding months of the reserve of parcels which had been built up at Geneva, and also to the interruption of the shipping services caused by damage to one of the vessels. He indicated that steps had been taken to remedy the situation and concluded:
This unfortunate diminution in the reserve of prisoners' parcels at Geneva has evidently been a gradual process extending over a number of months and is, of course, in no way attributable to the change in the management of the Red Cross Prisoners of War Department, which occurred only last week.
This shortage in the despatch of parcels from Geneva to the camps was, very naturally, a matter of concern to the House and also to the relatives of prisoners of war, and, perhaps the House will allow me to say, very naturally a matter of concern to the Government also. Accordingly on 5th March the Financial Secretary to the War Office made an announcement, which the hon. Lady has read and which I need not therefore repeat. It referred to the inquiry to be made by the Lord Privy Seal, the results of which were to be communicated to me. As the hon. Member for Wallsend has said, on account of the Lord Privy Seal's visit to India the Paymaster-General was good enough to undertake the inquiry instead. The anxiety which had been expressed, and not only expressed but felt, was whether the services rendered to our prisoners would continue to be carried out efficiently. The terms of reference show clearly that the essence of the inquiry was to assure ourselves and the public that the British Red Cross Society was still, after the resignation of Mr. Stanley Adams, adequately equipped to discharge its responsibilities towards the prisoners, and that is the only thing that matters in this business. There was no suggestion in the Financial Secretary's announcement that the inquiry was concerned with the circumstances which had led Mr. Adams to resign. It was concerned solely with the possible results of that resignation on the interests of our prisoners of war. Here I may, perhaps, say that the War Office has always sought to maintain a clear distinction between its own general responsibility for the welfare of British prisoners and the particular responsibility of the Red Cross, who are making the actual arrangements for pack-


ing and despatching parcels, included in those arrangements being; naturally, the staffing and the administration of their own offices. It is not for the War Office to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Red Cross, and we should certainly not have been a party to any inquiry which sought to do so, and clearly the Red Cross would not have expressed their approval of the inquiry if it had been one to investigate their private administrative arrangements.
The hon. Member for Wallsend has said that she has had no satisfactory explanation from me of the change of the terms of reference. If she thought they would contain something else, may I say in return that I have had no satisfactory explanation from her of why, if she was discontented, she did not raise the question on 5th March when the announcement was made. The announcement having been made of the terms of reference, which were agreed with the Lord Privy Seal and seemed to me quite clear then, and seem to me to be quite clear now, surely if she were dissatisfied she should have raised the point then and not have left it until after the result of the inquiry had been announced. The hon. Member for Wallsend has a second grievance and that is that she had expected the advice to be tendered in the form of a written report which could be published. Surely it is an extraordinary idea that the advice given by one Minister to another should form the subject of a formal and published report. One has only to examine the suggestion to see that on the face of it it is not reasonable. I can only say that there was no suggestion in the announcement of the inquiry that there was to be a formal and public report, and there is no such report. When he had completed his inquiries the Paymaster-General discussed with me the conclusions he had come to and offered certain advice, and both his conclusions and his advice were embodied in an agreed statement which I made to the House on 16th April. On this question of misunderstanding that is all I have to say.
The question of Mr. Adams' position has been raised, and I agree with the hon. Member that it is about time this controversy was put to rest. The hon. Member complained that the Government have not made a formal expression of thanks to Mr. Adams. Rightly or wrongly, and

I take full responsibility, I have all along taken the view that the War Office relations are with the Red Cross Society and not with any individual member of the Society. The gratitude of the Government and the War Office for what has been done by the Red Cross is not to individuals but to the Society as a whole. In the same way, if mistakes are made nobody wants to blame any individual—at least I do not and the War Office do not. We deal with the Society and that is all there is to it, and we have every reason to be abundantly grateful to the Red Cross Society. If I had not already taken so much of the time of the House I should like to have elaborated that theme a little but I cannot do it now, and perhaps the House will therefore allow me merely to give one or two reassuring figures about the parcel situation now. Since February of this year, when a rather alarming situation disclosed itself and it became necessary to rebuild the reserve at Geneva and also to supply an increased number of our prisoners after the operations in Libya, the Red Cross Society have increased their packings in this country from 75,000 parcels to 105,000 a week, and that number will very shortly become 120,000. The supply from Canada has been stepped up from 40,000 to 60,000, and will very shortly, we hope, become 70,000. Adequate supplies of clothing for the new prisoners of war are on the way, quite apart from the current supplies for the prisoners who have been there a longer time.

Major Gluckstein: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these parcels take to get there and how many of them have now arrived?

Sir J. Grigg: I will come to the despatches from Geneva in a minute. The permanent fleet of ships has been increased, and has been supplemented by other ships taken on short charter, in cases where they could not be got on long charter. The despatches of food parcels alone from Geneva were 370,000 in May, 550,000 in June and 280,000 for the first part of July. I do not know how long it takes from Geneva to the actual prisoners of war camps in Germany, but obviously that is probably the quickest part of the journey.
Having said, on behalf not only of the War Office but of the Government as a


whole, that we have every reason to be grateful to the Red Cross, I would like to repeat a note of warning which was contained in the statement I made, on I think 16th April, that the difficulties of getting parcels to Geneva and on to Germany are bound to increase. To those difficulties we, partly, contribute, in that we are doing our best to bomb communications in Germany. I am satisfied that the Red Cross is now equipped to deal with this matter as well as anybody can, and we certainly have no cause for dissatisfaction with their performance by and large, up to date—in fact, quite the contrary. There is close and continuous liaison between the societies, and the War Office and other Government Departments concerned with prisoners of war, and there are arrangements inside the War Office for co-ordinating the interests of Government Departments other than the War Office and of prisoners other than soldiers. There is, under the Financial Secretary to the War Office, an Imperial Prisoners of War Committee, which brings in the Dominion Government representatives as well. In fact, I have seen no sign whatever of any particularist activities in this matter, or any sign of lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments and the Empire Governments concerned. As I said just now, the work of the Red Cross Society in getting the parcels to the prisoners of war increases in magnitude and difficulty. I believe that the Red Cross have done everything possible and are doing everything possible to cope with this work. I can assure the House that the War Office and all Government Departments concerned will afford the Society every assistance it may seek in order to be able to carry out this work.

MOBILE WOMEN WORKERS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise to refer to a matter concerning the Minister of Labour, the transference of women. The matter may not have quite the same international significance as the two matters which have already been debated, but in domestic policy, and particularly in Scotland, there is a good deal of feeling and concern about it. While I am particularly concerned about the Scottish side of the matter, I recognise that it is not confined to any one part of the country but exists in many other

parts as well. After I gave notice that I was to raise this issue I received not only correspondence but communications from many Members of this House which show that the issue has a much wider application than to Scotland.
Let me make one point clear at the outset. I do not raise the general principle; I should be ruled out of Order, as it would require legislation to annul the Act, which was passed by this House with an overwhelming majority. The House of Commons agreed also to the Regulations giving the power of direction to the Minister of Labour and agreed later to the conscription of women up to 30 years of age. The only aspect of the matter with which I can deal upon the Adjournment Motion is the administration of the present Act. I cannot raise all the cases, particulars of which have been handed to me, in which injustice is complained of, so I propose to deal with the matter mainly as the result of my own experiences and my own views.
In this matter of transference, women cannot be handled in the same way as men. For good or ill, women have never had the experience of conscription before. Their relationship with their families at home is totally different, generally speaking, from that of men, and any attempt to deal with women in the same way as men would create great difficulties; yet not only are women being transferred in a most ill-advised way, but the law is not even being carried out. I am glad that the Leader of the House is present. He is a distinguished lawyer and I am going to ask him to see that the law is properly carried out in this respect. One of the charges I make is that the law is not being carried out. The Act gave power of conscription, but two categories were not to be touched. One was that of the woman having under her care a child, and the second, who was not to be transferred from her immediate surroundings, was the married woman.
I thought the interpretation of those phrases would be similar to the interpretation under the Unemployment Insurance Act, where the relationship between man and woman, not merely in the married State, is considered. Those who keep house together, such as father and daughter, where the mother is dead, are treated, for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, as man and wife. I


thought that, in that class of case, the woman would have the same defence as the married woman has; in some cases she has even a stronger case than have the childless couple. There is also the case of the woman having under her care a child. I can cite the case of a widower serving in the Middle East. He has two grown-up daughters at home, one in work of national importance to whom the Government says, quite properly, that she must not leave it. There is the other daughter, and a child at school. Who is it has charge of the child? The father in the Middle East has not; but the law says that his daughter has not got the child in her care either. Kindly note, however, that if this girl of 21 had an illegitimate child instead of a younger sister in her care, for the purposes of the law she would have been protected. That is what is happening now. When the law was passed we were told that the protection of the hardship tribunals would be available, but that is no defence. I say that the Minister of Labour and his officials are to blame for ever sending these people to the hardship committees. They ought to have the same protection as any girl with children under her care. I am not suggesting that the girl with an illegitimate child should be badly treated, I should be the last man in the world to say that; all I am asking is that they should be put on equal terms.
What happens to the daughter? She is sent to the hardship committee, and then she is told, if she is lucky—and you have to be very lucky for this—that her call-up is deferred. Then she has to look forward to appearing before the committee again after three months. My first claim, and it is not without precedent, is that where the Unemployment Insurance Acts accept a relationship as being similar to that of husband and wife, it should be accepted as such in this case. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not produce the hardship tribunals as a defence. I am not asking for that; I am asking that that type of case should never come, before the hardship tribunals at all.
Let me now say a word or two about another class of case. In the first case that I wish to raise the facts seemed to be so bad that I had to go very carefully. My long experience in raising these matters tells me that where the facts are so bad that they are hardly conceivable

it is best to check them. The facts in this case are not disputed. It concerns a woman of nearly 60, who has been in this country well over 50 years, and is almost as illiterate to-day as the first day she came. She can hardly speak the language. Her only two sons are serving with the Forces. She has one daughter, and she herself on the night of that terrible blitz on my native city was injured, and I think had a number of stitches put in her forehead. She is a widow, and is now told that her daughter must go too. That kind of thing is wrong: many hon. Members who voted for the Bill would never have accepted it if they had known that this was the kind of thing that would happen. And now they talk to us about the hardship committees.
Here is another case, a man of 70 who comes to me and asks me to find him a job. He tells me that he is living with his daughter but is capable of working. I went to the locomotive works and got him a job as a gateman—an important job in those places. He is now told that his daughter has to go, and the old fellow has to stop his work. So we chase the girl away, and bring home the old man who is doing a useful job. There is another case which has been handed to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I cannot vouch for the facts, but they are contained in a signed statement by the person concerned. She is a lady who lives in Wales—so it is not merely a Scottish issue—and she has actually been offered two war jobs. One is in Manchester and the other is in Greenock, so that people are being transferred from Greenock down here, while others are being transferred to Greenock. Yet we expect to win the war. That sort of thing does not look right.
I have another case here which was handed to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. There was an issue which at one time shook the country, the issue which arose in connection with unemployment and the application of the words "not genuinely seeking work." Those words were not bad in themselves. They meant that only people who were genuinely seeking work should receive benefits, and no one could object to that. Benefits were only to be refused to those Who were not genuine. But when it came to the actual practice we found that it worked out damnably. In the same way


the hardship committees may be excellent in theory, but in practice they do not work. The same courts which dealt with the "not genuinely seeking work" question, and set this country in a fever, are now judging the women. There is not an atom of difference. The chief chairman at the Glasgow City Exchange was the chairman of the "not genuinely seeking work" committee; he is the chairman of the courts of referees which determine issues of misconduct, and he is also the chairman of the hardship committees.
May I say to the Minister that if he had been trying to work this Act wrongly, he could not have done so more effectively? First of all he made this mistake. A court of referees' chairman is not necessarily a good chairman for this other body. He is accustomed to dealing with cases of misconduct. Criminal judges are frequently not good judges on matters arising from civil actions. Their type of mind does not fit in. A court of referees' chairman is dealing with cases of theft, drunkenness, swearing, etc. He then goes on to this other body with that background. Other chairmen might at least have been looked for It cannot be said that in Glasgow and the surrounding districts there is a dearth of lawyers. If the Sheriff Court is the proper court—our sheriff is the equivalent of a county court judge—we should get a better hearing and a better decision.
Scotland is interested in this because we still have some kind of nationality. I am not an ardent Nationalist, but I still have a liking for my native country. It has some tradition, some past. To-day many of our best women are being picked out and taken away. Scotland is going to be driven, with regard to its younger and most capable women, into a position similar to that of the distressed areas before the war. Those who come from Jarrow and similar areas know that the young capable men were taken away, that no one would start an industry because the youth was being taken. You will leave us in Scotland after the war bereft of many of our most capable women. Let me say this other word. I do not blame the Minister too much here, but it has a relationship to this matter. There is a part of Scotland which we call the Central Belt of Scotland. I do not represent it, but it has some of the finest tradesmen in Britain connected with iron foundry work. There

is no Government factory near that place. Whole masses of people in the iron foundries are not wanted now; steel is the thing. Masses of people are being moved, though nothing has ever been done to utilise them there. As one who has regard for his country—not in the sense of thinking we are the only race, because I do not think that—I want to see it preserved, to see some of its best things kept going. They cannot be kept going by actions of that kind.
In these days I am not, as I used to be, speaking almost every day. I do not want to be told that my views on the war are not those of the great mass of the people. I do not claim that, but I say that on the issue of this part of the war there are many who see it as I do, such as widows, some of whom had their husbands killed in the last war. I will quote one personal case. I have a sister whose husband died as a result of the last war. She has three girls. She worked and made the eldest a doctor, who is now in England, and the next one a nurse, who is also away. She has one girl left. She gave her husband in the last war, she has given two daughters to serve in this war, and has done it on a widow's pension and by her own work. She thinks she has done enough, and that it is terrible to haul her only remaining lassie away. I used to say to some of my friends in the course of my trade union work that human beings can only do a limited amount. Ask them to do too much, and they will break. We are asking our women in Scotland to do too much. If you answer, "We need the women," watch that you do not get a counter-effect that will be worse. I say frankly to the Minister that he cannot leave the position as it is. I know that he could skilfully, as I could were I in his place, quote the documents to show how this power applies. Let him differentiate between his documents and the human beings. Remember this matter goes deep. It is not a question of written instructions; it is a deep social issue. This issue in Scotland to-day is not a Labour party issue alone. Some of the people who feel worst about it are folk who in politics do not agree with me at all. But I am certain that in Scotland to-day, whatever our views may be on issues of politics, we ask the Minister of Labour, while recognising that hardship and difficulty may have to be caused, not


to approach the issue as though these women were cattle to be herded about but to see that these women receive fair treatment.
I add one word on an aspect of this matter which is causing deep feeling. Glasgow is a small city in size. A penny piece nearly covers it. You go from the poverty of Gorbals to the wealth of Shields for a penny ride on a tram. There on the one hand are widows whose daughters have been taken away. Up there they see the servant still working. They feel deep down in their hearts that they are not being fairly treated. As I say, I do not want to raise this matter in any nationalist sense, but I want to get something done if I can, to coax, if I can, some statement that will ensure decent treatment for the folk who are really the only folk I know about. To-day we have been discussing Jewish Army and other issues about foreign countries, and frankly I know little about them. The only thing I do know is my native city and its people, and I would plead earnestly for its women to be given decent treatment.

Mr. Kirkwood: The House knows perfectly well the line I have taken on this question right from the very beginning. I know that the Minister of Labour seems to feel that he has a grievance against me for pursuing him on this matter. I want to assure the Ministry and the Minister himself that there has been no vendetta against them on my part. I protested here at the begining of the war at factories being built in England and none being built in Scotland. Some of us prophesied what would happen. I make no apology for the fact that on this occasion I make my appeal as a Scotsman.
For almost 20 years I have been drawing the attention of this House to what has been happening to the Highlands of Scotland. They are almost derelict, particularly the West Highlands and Islands. We have seen, as a result of the policy adopted here in London, in the building up of the British Empire, this great reservoir being run almost dry, not only of its men but of its women. I see the same thing happening now in rural Scotland, which it being denuded of its womenfolk. The Ministry of Labour has been left to hold the baby. It has to find labour to fill those factories. I do not blame the

Ministry: it is the policy which is to blame. The effect will be tragic. It will affect our soldiers in the field, because, while there are some Scotsmen who can divorce themselves from this national sentiment, I express the feelings of the vast majority of Scotsmen, both in and out of the Army, when I make this protest. Their boys have gone to the front; the girls are coming into the factories. We had more factories for the women in Scotland in the last war than we have in this war, and there is more dilution in this war than in the last. Scotland has been treated shamefully in this matter. It is not only the mothers and the daughters and the ordinary working folk in Scotland who are beginning to wake up to the situation, but the employers are doing so, too. I have many letters which I could quote. I have quoted some of them. The Minister of Labour was a wee bit nasty when I did so. He said that he could not reply to my correspondence, because he had enough of his own to reply to. That was not a very statesmanlike utterance. Here is a letter from Ayrshire:
Scottish employers are simply wild"—
some more wild men from the Clyde—
that their urgent needs should be ignored in this apparently light fashion by Mr. Ernest Bevin, and a very awkward situation is being created, which may be difficult to control.
It is that very situation which has brought me to my feet—a situation in which all the young women are being taken away from Scotland. What are the soldiers going to think about that? Do you think that Scottish regiments are going to submit calmly to seeing their young women taken away, in this systematic, dastardly fashion, from Scotland to England, against their will? Mark that—against their will. The lasses do not want to go into industry; there is no denying the fact. In many cases the conditions are entirely foreign to those girls. I know that the Ministry has done many things for the benefit of the workers, I thank the Minister for the introduction of canteens on the Clyde. Until he did so there was not a solitary canteen at a shipyard on the Clyde, which is a standing disgrace to the shipbuilders of the Clyde. The Ministry have forced good conditions upon some of them. To the majority of our lasses going down to England, England is a foreign country. The mode of life, the outlook on life, are different. We are a distinct race. The very fact that


we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General for Scotland proves conclusively that even England has had to recognise that we are a distinct race, with distinct laws, with distinct characteristics, and with a distinct accent, which is recognised throughout the length and breadth of England, wherever we go.
In some places this is an asset: we are taken by the hand; but in other places, it has the opposite effect. It does not matter to Scotsmen, because we are quite capable of taking our own part wherever we go, whether the English, the Irish, or the Welsh like us or not. We men are physically and mentally equipped to meet all rigours. But the women folk are quite different. We are told that Scotsmen made a road down into England and forgot to make a road back. It is different the the women. They have been forced to come. I ask the representative of the Minister to give this matter as careful consideration as possible and see whether there is not some way that can be devised to mitigate the feeling which is abroad and upon which I feel very strongly. We have evidence of the discontent and uneasiness to-day and I can assure the Minister that if something can be done nobody will be better pleased than the people of Scotland, who have always been proud of the part they have played, and if not we shall have to take other means to safeguard Scottish interests.

Major McCallum: I am very much indebted to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for having raised this subject because, as he said, the application of the conscription of women in Scotland concerns not only his own colleagues but every Scottish Member. I would like to deal with the matter from the point of view of the Highland women. I do not myself believe that the position in the Highlands, particularly the West Highlands that I represent, is as mournful or depressed as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) thinks.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is because I have roamed them and the hon. and gallant Member has not.

Major McCallum: I have not nearly the experience of the hon. Member, but I happen to live in those glens and I have some idea of the inhabitants of the Highlands. I wish to deal with the aspect

of the subject which arises through taking away girls from the Highlands who were born and bred on the land and sending them to a training college in Glasgow or in the Lowlands and then to some factory or other in England. Agricultural labour in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, is extremely short, and I cannot understand the common sense, if there is any, of sending girls who have the cultivation of the land in their blood to make munitions or to do whatever industrial work it is intended for them to do, and at the same time making appeals to the country for women to join the Women's Land Army. In my own neighbourhood we have women from the Women's Land Army, and all honour to them, but there are many women who have to be taught the work on the land before they can really be of service to the fanners. I acknowledge with gratitude that the Ministry, when I have put forward cases, have readjusted them, and I have had cases where girls have been taken from the factory or the work they have been doing and sent back to the land and their families.
Would it be possible to issue a direction to the subordinate officials at the Ministry, and in particular to the managers and manageresses of employment exchanges throughout the Highlands indicating that they should use a little of their common sense and intelligence in placing these women? I can give the case of a family in one of the Western Isles in which there are two daughters who have been helping on the family croft all their lives. They are called up by the employment exchange and are sent to an industrial, training college and then to a factory. That same island is crying out for agricultural labour. It is almost criminal to take away people like that when they possess skilled labour as the result of generations on the land, and send them to totally different work, which I doubt whether they are able to do properly after months of training. I ask, therefore, whether directions could not be given to the employment exchanges in regard to dealing with women who have been used to agriculture. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not intend that they should be used in that unintelligent way. Directions should be issued that the officials should use their discretion in placing these women into work in which they would give the utmost


skill in the national effort where it is most needed.

Mr. Sloan: I am glad that this matter has been raised at the eleventh hour, because I do not know any question which has caused so much resentment in Scotland during my lifetime as the transfer of these women from Scotland to England. It is a most pathetic spectacle at the Central Station in Glasgow to see crowds of girls huddled together and being packed into the train to take them to England. The thing has developed into a positive scandal. I am unrepentant in regard to my attitude in this matter, because if there is one thing that I would have opposed more strenuously than any other in this House it is the conscription of women. It is said that if you can take the boys, why cannot you take the girls? We know that you have taken the boys. As far as I am able to judge, every retreat that has been made has been covered by Scottish regiments, and there are some 18,000 Scottish prisoners in enemy hands. I have a post-bag of complaints about these girls being taken away. Some of the cases stated by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) are merely small examples of those which could be brought before the House. No consideration whatever is paid to the home life when these girls are taken away. I received a letter to-day from one of my villages in Ayrshire. It relates to a miner's family. There are three miners in the house, an invalid mother, and a girl doing work of national importance, and now they are determined to take the only one who is able to look after the household and send her away to England. Cases like this are bound to raise resentment in the minds of our people. We had an example the other week of two Scottish girls being sent to prison at Coventry because they had failed to turn up at their work in time.
We cannot stand for the treatment of Scottish girls in this fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals pointed out the very grave social problem that has arisen in this matter, namely, that many of these girls who are being taken away will never come back to Scotland. It may seem a contradiction, but they will make connections in England and will settle here and not return. It is an old dodge—

as old as the eternal hills. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that four or five thousand years ago, when battles were won, the victors collected the female population and took them away with them. There was a very significant biological reason for it, because if you want to wipe out a population, you have only to wipe out the women. The world has withstood many wars in its history because only men were destroyed. We cannot afford to let our country be denuded of its womenfolk.
A statement was made recently by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) with regard to the depopulation of Scotland and the fall in the birth-rate. It is more alarming than even he imagines. I read figures compiled by Professor Cathcart some time ago which, showed that if the birth-rate remained static, in 100 years' time there would be only 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people in Great Britain. If it remains static and you take away our womenfolk, what sort of Scotland will be left? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave figures the other day about the introduction of new industries to Scotland, but he gave them in the form of so many millions of square feet and new factory space. So far as my observation goes, however, the great amount of that space is occupied by storage—

Mr. Kirkwood: Scotland has been made a storage place for England.

Mr. Sloan: That is exactly what it amounts to. I have in my possession a letter similar to that in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It deals with a lace factory at Irvine, where lace manufacture has been stopped and light industry has taken its place. You are taking away from this district highly skilled girls who have spent their lifetime working on machinery. Through the conversion of this factory, this Ayrshire firm will have to look for workpeople wherever they can find them. Where is the sense in transferring girls from Ayrshire and then having to look for other girls to take their places? Whatever answer the Parliamentary Secretary may give us to-day, or may try to put us off with, it will not help in the least. This problem is deep-seated and deep-ridden, and I say to him, for God's sake, do something about it now—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think it is perhaps time, since it has occurred several times, to point out the Rule against mentioning the name of the Deity in a Debate. It may be mentioned seriously, but if it is used as a smoking-room expression, it is regarded, technically, as bad language. I think it is advisable that Members should bear that Rule in mind.

Mr. Sloan: I accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to violate any Rule, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will impress upon the Ministry of Labour the necessity of doing all they can to have this sort of thing stopped.

Mrs. Hardie: I do not want to take up much time, because I had an opportunity on another occasion of speaking about women, but I thought it would not seem right if the one Scottish woman Member present did not say a word about a question in which she is deeply interested. I have said already that girls in Scotland have not objected to going from a particular job to do necessary war work. Indeed, they have been quite willing, but the whole point is that many of them do not want to leave their homes. It has been pleasant, as a Scotswoman, to hear the deep indignation of Scotsmen at the fact that they might lose our Scots girls. I am sure all Scotswomen will be very pleased, but might I suggest that it would be much better if the men thought more of the women than they have done in the past? If they did, then they would not be quite so ready to marry English girls when they come here. Here may I say that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) about Glasgow girls? I am sure that a large proportion of them will be able to hold their own whatever town they may go to. Some are quite willing to go; they want a bit of adventure the same as the boys. They do not mind a change for a short time to take up other work, but girls who do not want to go, or who have very strong home ties, should not be forced to go.
I do not need to add much to the kind of illustrations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but there are some cases in which tribunals have been most unreasonable. Girls know there has been work in Glasgow which they could take, but they have

been told that they are mobile and that they must go away so that, in theory, married women could take their jobs. But I must remind the House that most working-class married women in Scotland have big families. It is only in London that you see married women hanging on to dogs. The result is that if you accept these married women, they must leave their children and you must provide war nurseries and somebody else to look after them. No doubt they would be pleased to hand over their children to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and go away to munitions factories for a rest. The point is that there is not a big surplus of women like that to go into factories, and that makes them indignant.
I want to give an example of the kind of case we have in mind and about which I sent a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary to see if his heart was any softer than his chief's heart. It concerns a girl whose mother is a widow and not strong. The mother has two sons. One of them was in the Army and has been on active service, but he has been invalided out, his health broken down. The other son is in the Army and is abroad, fighting. The girl is a baker; surely, that is work of national importance, for surely it is as important to produce bread as it is to fill shells, even in war-time. She has been told that she must take up different work. She does not object to changing her work if the Ministry think that is the best thing, but she does not want to go to England. In the case of this widow, one of whose sons has been invalided out of the Army, a helpless invalid unable to work, and whose other son is still in the Army, title daughter, whose wages would help to keep the home and who would be a little comfort to her mother, is told to go to England. That is the sort of case to which we object.
The tribunals are most callous. I think that in the case of widows whose daughters are helping in the home, the daughters should not be taken away. There are also the cases where girls are sometimes working outside but also looking after the other members of the family at home. It has always been the lot of the working-class girl not only to work outside but to help the mother at home, for otherwise very often the mother could not manage. It is very hard for those girls to be sent away. What we feel is that the factories should


be put in Scotland, particularly when the girls know their jobs. I must say, although I have no racial prejudice, that when I go to some of the hotels and even the shops in Scotland and find people with foreign accents in the nice easy jobs, I wonder what we are coming to. Why net put those people to shell-filling instead of, in some cases, dragging the Scottish women and the English women out of their jobs and putting them in the most disagreeable ones? I feel very strongly about this matter, and therefore, I associate myself with everything that has been said in the Debate. I think the least the Minister can do is to give directions to the tribunals and to his officials to be a little more sensible in dealing with these cases of single women.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a matter which has raised a great deal of interest in Scotland, not only in itself, but because of the attitude it represents. There is a grave danger of Scotland coming put of the war not only as a depressed area, but as an area with a potentiality of depression much greater than it has ever had before. It happens that in many cases the small light industries which we have built up, and which are all too few in number, are being depleted of their labour for the purpose of extending the great engineering works South of the Border. We all know of the case of the big firm of carpet manufacturers in Scotland, a firm having the highest skill, which wove the carpet for the Coronation, and whose workers were brought down to see that great event because of the great technical skill they had shown—

Mr. Kirkwood: And wove the carpets for the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —a firm which has produced carpets for many of the great State functions, and, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) says, for many of the highest quality products of construction in the whole Island. There is danger of that factory being depleted of its skilled workers, and it is difficult to keep it going. But difficulties do not exist simply to be bowed down before. The danger of destroying the light industries in Scotland is the danger of causing lasting damage, for skilled personnel once dispersed is very

difficult to reassemble. There are, in addition, the ordinary hardships of which all of us continually have examples in our constituencies. The hon. Lady the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) mentioned the case of a baker. In my constituency I have had put to me the case of a girl who is working with her father, very long hours, from 6 o'clock in the morning until late at night, doing what I venture to think is important work, and doing it in conditions which makes it possible for her to devote greater effort to it than she could do in any other circumstances. It may be necessary that she should be called up, but great care should be exercised before a small family business is broken up, because the breaking up of a small family business leads to an amount of dislocation which it is very difficult indeed for the heads of the great businesses to understand. If you dislocate a small family business you dislocate something which can never be put together again.
There is, however, an even more important point; it arose, for instance, in a statement that was made at Question Time to-day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning concerning the reduction of brick production. The hon. Gentleman said that this scheme was to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. I asked specifically whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had been consulted, and I was told that he had been. I did not then press the matter further, but I should like to do so now. What did the Secretary of State for Scotland say, if he was consulted? We all know the story of the man who Went to a Harley Street specialist and on going out was asked by the specialist for his fee. The man asked, "What for?" The specialist replied, "For my advice." The man said, "I am not taking your advice." If the Secretary of State for Scotland was consulted, was full weight given to what he said? Can we have an assurance that in such cases as this there will not be rationalisation which telescopes things out of Scotland in the way that we all know? One of the great difficulties in housing in Scotland is the shortage of bricks. The brick industry in Scotland is a new creation compared with the brick industry in England, and if there is a general 10 per cent. cut, in certain great English works it will be nothing to speak of, but in the Scottish brick works it will


be a very serious matter indeed. Those hon. Members opposite who were members of the Glasgow Town Council at the end of the last war will remember the difficulties that we had in obtaining bricks and that the Corporation even had to set up a works of its own to deal with the shortage. Considering these things, the danger of rooting out workers from such an industry is a very serious matter and one that should be kept in mind when the question of the transfer of labour is being considered.
The transfer of girls out of Scotland is a confession of weakness; it is a gospel of despair. It should be possible to bring the work there, to develop the manufacturing facilities there—all the more so because, in the conditions of the present war, that country is not, or has not been, open to the same intensive raiding as many of the counties in England. It was quite right no doubt that many of the great factories should have been developed South of the Border when France was our Ally and there was a great belt of territory separating us from the nearest German aircraft. But since then, Birmingham, Coventry, the whole of the manufacturing areas of the Midlands, have been raided time and again. It is necessary to remember that this may be a long war, and steps to deal with it should be taken not on a short-term policy but on a long-term policy. Therefore, the development of plant and facilities in the North rather than in the Midlands and the South should be considered as part of our general war policy, and we should not merely transfer labour to existing plant because that is the easiest thing to do. The people of Scotland are very sensitive about this matter. In the case of some factories in the constituency of an hon. Member opposite—I will not particularise more—it was suggested that machine tools would be transferred away. Hon. Members were inundated with letters from the operatives there; there was great fear because they saw beginning again what they had seen before during and after the last war—the moving out of vital industries, with the consequence that the labour had to follow them. Therefore I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should look at this matter very closely. Although it is not the case that a large amount of transferring has taken place, there is the tendency which we have continuously to take note

of and draw attention to. There is a tendency to use the Northern Kingdom as a reservoir and pump it out into the South; it is a dangerous tendency for the life of the Northern Kingdom, and it is not in the best interests of the whole country.
I do not wish to go into the question of land girls, because this matter is, no doubt, one of those things which is inherent in the working of Government Departments, and is difficult to explain to ordinary persons outside. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make a clear explanation when he comes to reply. Do not let us brush this lightly aside. It is causing, and it has caused, a good deal of ill-feeling in the North. There is a feeling that a hæmorrhage is going on, and they are very anxious to stop it. The mere fact that the nation has not lost much blood does not mean everything. People see blood on the bandages. They do not like it, and they feel that they may be exposed to great risks in the future. This is not a party question; it affects all Scottish Members, who wish to see this drain stopped as soon as possible.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I should like to add my plea. [Interruption.] I do not know what I have said to cause that irritation below the Gangway. I have not spoken in this House for months, and on many occasions I have given way to younger Members. I protest as the oldest Member in Scotland against what is being done to Scottish girls in violation of an Order issued by the Ministry of Labour. Girls go to the employment exchanges and inform the officials that they have an offer of employment in a factory engaged on essential war work. They ask for green cards so that the officials in the factories will give them employment. The employment exchange officials travel around telling the girls that they cannot have green cards for work in factories which are near their own localities. They cannot get green cards because they are booked for England. They are always told, "It is over the Border for you." What is mobile work, and what is mobility? Not moving from Scotland to a situation in England. Mobility of work means moving from a job which is non-essential in Glasgow to a job which is essential in Glasgow. If you say a girl is mobile, she is actually filling in the form issued by the Ministry of Labour


when she can prove that she has received an offer of employment upon war work in her own locality, and the Order of the Ministry tells her to do so. It states definitely and distinctly, "If you can get employment in your own locality, go at once to your employment exchange and obtain a green card and take it to the place that offered you employment. You may then save yourself from the necessity of being transferred again." Is not that true? Why in Heaven's name are these girls being sent to England?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Because it does not apply to that particular section.

Mr. Maclean: It does apply to that particular question, because the girls have been given that form when they made application to the Employment Exchange for a green ticket. If the officials do not know their jobs, you cannot blame the girls for not being able to understand the forms given them. I have had at least 30 girls before me with cards of that kind, who were all to go to England, and I have lost only two of them, one through her own folly and the other withdrew her opposition and volunteered to go to England. The Minister has taken enough girls from Scotland. Let him walk round the streets in London, let him go into the shops in Oxford Street—Bourne and Hollingsworth, Peter Robinson, Selfridge—and see the young girls in there, clipping coupons. Is that essential war work? If you want girls to do work in factories, you have plenty here, and you have plenty of work for the girls in Scotland if you send your orders there instead of denuding the factories. You have left a score of factories with nothing but bare walls, because you have taken the machinery out of them and transported it to fill the factories in England. We are not standing for that. We have had three years of war, and, if you do not know the mechanical possibilities, the mechanical skill and other matters relating to production in Scotland, it is high time that you were made aware of it. What are you going to do for these girls? Is it necessary for them to come here? The joke of the matter is that the girls that I was able to keep in Scotland were told, "It is not anything your Member of Parliament has done for you that has

kept you here. It is merely a change in your own domestic circumstances." I asked them, "What is the change in your domestic circumstances?" They said, "We do not know. Everything at home is just the same." But an excuse was necessary.
I want the Minister to face up to the facts of the situation. There is ample work for the girls in Scotland, even for girls from the Hebrides. There is plenty of work on the land, in the factories, in the hospitals and in the different associations for providing help for the war. There is plenty of work for these girls in Scotland, and they should not be sent away from home and thrust into strange places. Sometimes they are told when they arrive, "We do, not know why you have come down," or "We are not ready yet, and we did not ask for you to be sent down." I am not blaming the local officials for this, but I am blaming some higher-up official in London. The official order has evidently been given out to send all the girls of such and such an age to towns in England where there are factories, but not to factories in Scotland. We have a number of good factories in Scotland doing necessary war work. These girls could do a good spot of work there where they would have the comfort and security of home and the associations with which they have been brought up. They would be much happier producing in factories near their own homes, and, being happier, they would be able to produce more than if they were sent away and tied up in hostels, not knowing the girls there and probably not understanding their English dialect.

Mr. Mathers: I want to add my voice to the chorus of appeals that has been made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour about taking girls from Scotland. I recognise a certain unfairness in the appeals being addressed to the Ministry of Labour, because initially this is not a matter for which the Minister of Labour is responsible. The trouble is due to the fact that in the planning of the war factories Scotland was omitted from consideration. That is the background for all that has been talked about to-day. I am anxious that this matter should be dealt with in the light of present circumstances. I am sure that much material has been given to the Parliamentary Secretary to enable him to realise how deep and strong is the feel-


ing that exists in Scotland. I have had to deal with many cases of so-called mobile girls who are required to go away from home in order to get employment. In the majority of these cases I have to admit that as the law stands there is no effective appeal that can be made for them. They are mobile, and the Minister of Labour refuses to recognise Scotland as entitled to claim them. He treats-Britain as a whole, as he is entitled to do, and he directs these girls to where they are most needed. That is the law, and where the girls can properly be said to be mobile we cannot make an effective appeal for them. There are cases, however, where the hardship tribunals to which these girls can appeal err on the side of failing to give the necessary preferment.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section 1 of the Act to—

(1) the Borough of Surbiton; and
(2) the Urban District of Pickering

copies of which were presented to this House on 4th August, be approved.—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

MOBILE WOMEN WORKERS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: I want to condense what I have to say, and I would therefore use a concrete case to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary where I think some consideration might be given to the better guidance of hardship tribunals. A girl, one of my constituents, who was in employment appealed three months ago for deferment. That was backed by her employer, because the deferment asked for was more particularly for the employer, and three months' deferment was given. Within the three months her

mother has become quite seriously ill and is now waiting for a bed in a hospital in order to be treated for a very serious condition. The family doctor has insisted that this only daughter come home from her work, without finishing the three months' deferment that was given, and take her place in the home to look after the four men in the family. The father and three brothers are all miners, and to give an indication of what she will be required to do I am told that those men turn out at different times, varying from a quarter to 5 in the morning to 11 at night, according to the times of the shifts worked. That girl, in going to the hardship tribunal with her own case, not with her employer's case, was not given deferment on those grounds, although medical certificates were presented to show the condition in which the mother was placed, and one member of the tribunal, I am told, went the length of saying to the girl when she was making her plea, "But you are not going to the infirmary with your mother." It seems to me that if true that was a shocking thing for the girl to be met with. At the moment the position she is in is that her deferment has been refused by the hardship tribunal, but I am glad to think she has been given the opportunity of appealing to the Umpire, and I feel certain that that is a case that the Umpire cannot possibly ignore. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that that kind of case is one which demands some better instructions being given to hardship tribunals.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I do not think that the Minister, could he have been present, would have objected in the least to the way in which this subject has been raised, or to the type of speeches that have been made. In regard to some aspects of the problem, the suggestion has been made that the Ministry of Labour are not responsible, that is in the placing of work which would have absorbed the women who of necessity have been transferred The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who opened the discussion, and did so in a speech which, if I may say so, surprised me by its moderation, gave two or three instances which, I think, call for examination and an interpretation of the law with respect to married women and the position of the daughter of a widower who he suggested


was, in another regard, treated as a married woman. He began by suggesting that we cannot handle women in the same way as men, without involving repercussions. His whole speech suggested that the discussion of hardship and of what constitutes hardship under the tribunals must of necessity be difficult and call for careful handling. We realise that, and nobody realises it more clearly than the Minister. I agree that it is impossible to pass legislation affecting our family life and particularly our women folk without repercussions and without involving hardship.
My contention is that there is always hardship when an individual who does not want to leave home is called upon to leave home, but that is not hardship within the meaning of the Act. The difficulty arises, in carrying out what we believe was the intention of the Act. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the case of the daughter of a widower and stated that, in law, such a person would be in the same category as a married woman. He referred to what appears quite unfair, that whereas a girl in charge of an illegitimate child is protected, a girl in charge of a younger sister is not protected, by the same Act. I admit what was intended, but whether the law is implementing what was intended is a different matter. I do not think, strictly speaking, it can be regarded as legally sound to place a person, such as the hon. Member described, in the category of married woman, but I will bring that particular legal point to the notice of my right hon. Friend with a view to its being examined. I am sorry that this developed into a Scottish Debate, on the first opportunity I have had of sitting in, without being looked at in a certain kind of way.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman was the target, but in a friendly way.

Mr. Tomlinson: I admit it was very friendly. As the hon. Member said, this is not strictly a Scottish question. The transfer of women has not only taken place from Scotland to England—and not only from England to Scotland either, although it is sometimes suggested that the Minister of Labour was, for some unknown reason, bringing girls from a particular town in Scotland and sending English girls there There may be in-

dividual cases in which, for some very special reason, a person with particular qualifications has been sent to a place from which women are being exported; but it is only in very peculiar and particular instances. I have said a lot of hard things about the Ministry of Labour in my time, but I can assure the House that the Ministry would not purposely embark upon a policy of doing the wrong thing in order to be wrong as seems sometimes to be suggested. I would not attempt to stand at the Table and justify the transference of girls from one town to another when at the same time girls from the other town were being sent back to the first. It may have happened, I am not suggesting that it has not happened; in the best-regulated undertakings things sometimes go wrong, but the House can rest assured that it is part of the Minister's policy to see to it that when mistakes of that kind are made, they are rectified as quickly as possible, for the simple reason that it is not only more expensive but we know that it leads to troubles of the kind described to-day.
I repeat that this transfer of women is not simply a Scottish question, and the attention paid to the transfer of what I described as mobile women sometimes tends to over-emphasise this aspect of the women's placing work of the Ministry of Labour, and to get it out of due proportion. From January to May this year 757,845 women were placed by the Ministry in all forms of industrial employment, including 387,000 in munitions industry. There are no statistics showing the exact numbers of those placings which involved living away from home, but some indication of the proportion is given by the fact that the settling-in grant which can be claimed by people who are transferred away from home was claimed and paid in 22,000 cases. That is, 22,000 out of 757, 845.

Mr. Buchanan: Does that really represent the proportion; are there not certain conditions attached to the payment of this sum which prevent it being a true figure?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think the hon. Member for Gorbals is confusing two different things—one is the lodging grant which goes on continuously, but the same conditions do not apply to the settling-in grant, which is paid to the women who are called upon to transfer.

Major Lloyd: What percentage of the 22,000 come from Scotland?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not work that out now, but I will give the figures later if I get so far.
It is the policy of the Ministry, if we can meet the requirements, without transference, to do so. Somebody has suggested to-day that the reason we transfer girls from Scotland to England is that there is some sinister design on somebody's part to depopulate Scotland and repopulate England with the best blood by bringing in the Scottish girls. I can assure the House that although I have a great admiration for the Scottish girls I would not be a party to a policy which had any sinister design of that kind behind it. Mistakes may have been made; in the light of events, it may be that when we made our plans, even before the war, factories were placed in the wrong places, and I am not here to-day to suggest that all the planning that has taken place was rightly done. I am not here to suggest that some of the districts which are being fed from outside are not over-populated from the standpoint of industry as things have turned out. What I am here to defend is the action of the Ministry in that when factories have been erected and the work has got to be carried on, the policy that has been followed of attempting to fill these factories by the people best able to man them has led of necessity to the transference of labour. Although that has brought with it hardship I wish to suggest that so far as we are concerned we have attempted to look at these hardships with a view to making them as light as possible. The plans that were made long ago, as I have intimated, rendered transfer of labour necessary.
What about the method of transfer? The country has been divided into areas, and these areas have been classified under three heads. In the first place, areas where there is a shortage and the demand is urgent: women are sent to those areas. The second classification is where the local urgent demands can just be met from local resources, and therefore it is not necessary to import or export labour. This is where it appears as though there were a disadvantage to those districts which are called upon to export, because there are quite a number of districts in England and some in Wales where the

urgent demand can just be met by the people who are there. Therefore, the people who are in exactly the same category as the Scottish girls are allowed to remain at home and carry out the work, because the urgent local need is being met by the local people. Then there are areas where the demand is less acute and can be satisfied by immobile women, in other words areas in which there is a demand for labour such as has been instanced to-day, but where, at the same time, the demand can be met by the women who are not working but who cannot leave home. It is there the necessity arises for these young persons who are mobile, whose removal from home can be carried out, to be transferred and for the immobile women to carry out the work. Although, as has been suggested to-day, it leads to difficulties, and the human element comes into it more than anything else, yet this is the only possible way in which the whole of our man-power and woman-power can be mobilised. Unless you employ the immobile women in the places where they can be employed and transfer your mobile women, even though it goes against the grain, it is the only way in which both the mobile and immobile women can be utilised.
The regulation of transfer is done by linking together all the different areas. For instance, the Northern and North Wales areas supply the North-West, whilst Scotland and the North-Eastem, South Wales and London supply the Midlands, and the others are self-supporting, though they have to transfer women within their own boundaries in some instances. Thus throughout the country women are required to leave home and in the light of what has been said it is interesting to note that Scotland is transferring 500 women a month to the Midlands but London is transferring 670 a month to the Midlands, so that there is a greater number of people going out of the London area every week into the Midlands than is coming from Scotland. [Interruption.] No, I have not overlooked either the numbers or the geographical position. I am not attempting to compare London with Scotland. It is not a question of having picked out Scotland; it is a question of the necessities of the situation having to be faced, in order to provide the woman power which is required. For obvious reasons, no cross-transfers are being made.

Lieut. -Colonel Elliot: Owing to the widespread devastation of London, a lot of people have had to leave London in any case. That does not apply to the Northern Kingdom.

Mr. Tomlinson: The interruption is rather in favour of what I was suggesting. What I wanted to point out was, not that London was doing more than Scotland, but that we had not picked on Scotland just because it was Scotland—and there is no intention of doing so. The hon. Member for Gorbals, quite properly, pointed out that there are different categories of mobile women. You have them under the Registration for Employment Order. In that case the hardship cases are dealt with by panels of women outside the Ministry. After they decide a case, directions are given, and if exception is taken to the direction, appeals can be made to the Local Appeal Board. There is another category, which, I think, is the one that causes most heartburning. That is the category which comes under the National Service Act, consisting of those women born from 1918 to 1921. Here the appeal is to the Hardship Committee. They can appeal only for postponement of calling up. This House decided that the same conditions as apply to the calling up of men under the Military Service Acts should be applied to women of this category. This is where the question of the interpretation of what constitutes hardship arises.
It is suggested that instructions should be given to the managers of our local exchanges or to people in certain positions connected with the local exchanges, that they should exercise discretion. It is not easy to allow discretion to officials in local offices in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. I do not see how it could be done. The hardship tribunal, having gone into the question, the appeal is to the umpire, who is the final authority.

Mr. Buchanan: This is one of my challenges. The umpire, who decides this matter, says to people that they have to prove more than hardship, that they have to prove exceptional hardship. I say that the umpire has no right to break the law, and you have no right to let him do so. All that has to be proved is hardship, and the umpire is not entitled to add anything to that.

Mr. Tomlinson: He is the individual who, in the final resort, has to determine—

Mr. Buchanan: He is not allowed to break the law, or to make the law—we do that.

Mr. Tomlinson: I admit that, but I am not prepared to admit that he is breaking the law, or that we have broken the law in refusing to accept that which was laid down by the hon. Member.

Mr. Buchanan: It was laid down as "hardship" and nothing else. There has been added to it by the umpire the word "exceptional," so that it is "exceptional hardship," and even the umpire should not be allowed to break the law.

Mr. Tomlinson: That is a question which I cannot got into, but I do not think that the umpire is the individual who had added the term "exceptional." The question arises of how hardship is to be defined and it might be that in interpreting hardship the word "exceptional" is brought in to show the difference between hardship and need. There is not a case anywhere of an individual being asked to leave home in which hardship might not be involved. The question is, what is hardship legally and what is the meaning of the word "hardship" as we understand it?
It is impossible to reply to all the remarks that have been made, but all that we have done on the welfare side to meet the requirements of people compelled to transfer from home has been done because we know of the repercussions which might arise. Although I have not been able to answer all the questions put to me, I promise that the speeches will be read and the arguments that have been raised will be noted, and as far as the Ministry is concerned, we are anxious that, within the terms of the law and the desires of the House, that which has to be done will be done with as little hardship as is possible under legislation of this type.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly till 8th September, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 5th August.